OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

wsbpel message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue 11 - Call for Discussion


Hi Alex,

 

Well I don’t like the idea of the issue 11 solution requiring something else for it to hold water, given the slippery slope we are going down.  And I think without the rename function you proposed it would be leaky.  Maybe we shouldn’t try to combine the data movement with creates at all then the new syntax would be:

 

<insertAfter variable=”varName” part=”partName”? createNode=”qname”>

 <query>Expression evaluates to one node, which is a sibling of the new node<query/>

</insertAfter>

 

<insertBefore variable=”varName” part=”partName”? createNode=”qname”>

 <query>Expression evaluates to one node, which is a sibling of the new node<query/>

</insertAfter>

 

<append variable=”varName” part=”partName”? createNode=”qname”>

 <query>Expression evaluates to one node, which is the parent node<query/>

</append>

 

<remove variable=”varName” part=”partName”?>

 <query>Expression evaluates to one node, which is the node to remove<query/>

</remove>

 

This way we don’t need to spec out new required functions.  Note I changed Danny’s syntax to reflect query as an element per Issue 13. 

 

Alternatively this syntax could be used in place of a <to> in a <copy>. But remove would have to stand alone as it could not be a <to>.

 

Chris

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Alex Yiu [mailto:alex.yiu@oracle.com]
Sent
:
Friday, February 27, 2004 5:59 PM
To: Chris Keller
Cc: 'Glenn Mi'; 'Danny van der Rijn'; 'Wsbpel@Lists. Oasis-Open. Org (E-mail)'; ALEX.YIU@oracle.com
Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue 11 - Call for Discussion

 


Chris,

Understood. And, agree that function is not a part of XPath 1.0 per see.
The main point that I was trying to make is: we can achieve the similar functionalites without adding / sprinkling new attribute to the from-spec / to-spec of assign.

Whether there should be other BPEL-mandated functions (similar to bpws:getVariableData) or not ... I think that it is better to deal it with as a separate BPEL issue. Like Danny said, there are quite a lot of things for us to discuss on Issue 11 already. :-)


Regards,
Alex Yiu


Chris Keller wrote:

Hi Alex,

 

The pfx:rename function in your example is not part of XPath 1.0.  So would this be a function like bpws:getVariableData which is mandated by BPEL.

 

Chris

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Alex Yiu [mailto:alex.yiu@oracle.com]
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 5:08 PM
To: Chris Keller
Cc: 'Glenn Mi'; 'Danny van der Rijn'; 'Wsbpel@Lists. Oasis-Open. Org (E-mail)'
Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue 11 - Call for Discussion

 


Hi, Chris,

Using Glenn's example, we can have the following (instead of adding an attribute to to-spec):

<appendChild>
  <from>
    <expression> pfx:rename($b/c,d) </expression>
  </from>
  <to variable="a" query="/a" />
<appendChild>



[ Note: rename() is side-effect free. It does not modify $b. It constructs a new element based on $b. ]

Also, please note that case [b] is basically isomorphic to the following (semantics are the same, but the syntax are different):

<appendChild>
  <from>
    <expression> $b/c </expression>
  </from>
  <to variable="a" query="/a" nodeName="d" />
<appendChild>


I hope you would like my suggestion.



Regards,
Alex Yiu



Chris Keller wrote:

I agree with the additional nodeName attribute (or another name like createNode).  I don’t think of it as a rename and I think it would be more consistent with the <copy> treatment of <from> and <to>.  Currently the <copy> operation takes the contents of a <from> node and moves it to the contents of an existing <to> node.  So if you have a WSDL message part which is defined using a "type" designator you can use that as a <from> and copy that into a <to> where the <to> uses a query to target an element of the same underlying type.  If I wanted to append that part into a new branch of a message using <append> without the nodeName attribute how would that be done?  I think we need a nodeName="qname" attribute in the <to> of an append operation (and insert...) in order to allow it.

 

Chris

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Glenn Mi [mailto:gmi@collaxa.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 9:12 PM
To:
Alex Yiu
Cc: Danny van der Rijn; 'Wsbpel@Lists. Oasis-Open. Org (E-mail)'
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue 11 - Call for Discussion

 

Alex:

 

Thank you very much for the info. I will need some time to reconsider my "rename" use case.

 

Regards,

 

Glenn

-----Original Message-----
From: Alex Yiu [mailto:alex.yiu@oracle.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 5:33 PM
To:
Glenn Mi
Cc: Danny van der Rijn; 'Wsbpel@Lists. Oasis-Open. Org (E-mail)'; ALEX.YIU@oracle.com
Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue 11 - Call for Discussion


Hi Glen,

(1)
About XUpdate status:
There was an old and outdated XUpdate draft (way back in 2000).
There is a new WG going on restarting that effort. I don't think there is any public draft from the new WG so far on the web. Oracle's XQuery representatives also represents Oracle in the new XUpdate WG. One thing is for sure: XQuery 1.0 will be finalized way before XUpdate.

(2)
About the to-spec usecase, I am not 100% sure that I follow what you said.
If my understanding is right, you are suggesting to combine "rename" and "appendChild" into one operation. That may potentially fall into the slippery slope that I talked about. :-)  ... And, Danny has redrawn the rename part in his recent proposal.

Also, I consider "rename" as a part of "transformation" business. It can be done within XSLT or XQuery quite well. Changing the QName of the node is basically changing the "type" of the document. I am not so sure that there are a lot of cases that you can just the node name without changing other parts of the structure of the node.



Regards,
Alex Yiu


Glenn Mi wrote:

Alex:

 

There is one case that I found today that you might want to add to your proposal. Say we have

Variable A: <a/>

Variable B: <b><c>something</c></b>

And you want do an append so that Variable A becomes: <a><d>something</d></a>.

This is a common use case in BPEL. It requires the means to provide the name of the

new node.

 

So the to-spec of your <appendChild> and <insertBefore> might need to be like:

<to variable="..." part="..."? query="..."? nodeName="..."? />

 

 

BTW, anyone knows the status of the XUPDATE spec ? Is it mature enough to be referred to by

the BPEL spec ?

 

Glenn

 

 

 

 



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]