RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 96 - Opaque Correlation Sets

["Ugo Corda" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>]

Sure, my reference to reliability was just an analogy in terms of a
functionality which might be there but still cannot be directly
manipulated by the BPEL language (we talked about this in the past). The
session example is much more relevant to this specific issue.

Ugo

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Satish Thatte [mailto:satisht@microsoft.com] 
> Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 11:12 PM
> To: Ugo Corda; Monica J. Martin; Furniss, Peter
> Cc: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 96 - Opaque Correlation Sets
> 
> 
> I agree with Ugo except I would replace his example of 
> reliability with session -- since it is the session that 
> provides correlation not the reliability ;-)
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> From: Ugo Corda [mailto:UCorda@SeeBeyond.com]
> Sent: Thu 3/4/2004 9:25 AM
> To: Monica J. Martin; Furniss, Peter
> Cc: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 96 - Opaque Correlation Sets
> 
> 
> 
> > >Furniss: Aren't there also cases where the BPEL process 
> requires that
> 
> > >the communication be via a correlating protocol, but doesn't mind
> which
> > >one ? The requirement from the process is just that the 
> communication
> 
> > >be "connection-oriented" at application level - the application is
> not
> > >going to use its own data values to discriminate, and isn't
> interested
> > >in what the underlying protocol uses, so long as the conversations
> can
> > >be distinguished. Which underlying protocol is actually used is 
> > >deferred to the binding.
> > >
> > >Or is this out in abstractional hyper-space ?
> > >
> > When we move outside of WSDL- and Schema-described XML 
> messages, don't
> > we lose some control? Doesn't this opacity bring risk with it?  What
> > other issues have we not identified (plus allowing use of 
> proprietary
> > specifications)?
> 
> I didn't read Peter's remark as requiring to "move outside of 
> WSDL- and Schema-described XML messages". I think his point 
> includes cases where the correlation protocol is a standard, 
> WSDL- and XML-based WS correlation protocol, but such that 
> the BPEL language does not get to directly manipulate it. The 
> analogy would be the use of a standard WS reliability 
> protocol: even if it's there, the BPEL language itself does 
> not get to manipulate it.
> 
> Ugo
> 
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from 
> the roster of the OASIS TC), go to 
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel/members/le
ave_workgroup.php.