Re: [wsbpel] Issue 103 - Good Idea!

[Assaf Arkin <arkin@intalio.com>]

> (4)
> Assaf suggested:
> In WSDL 2.0,
> $variable/ns:element[/ns:subElement]
> In WSDL 1.1,
> $variable/partName/ns:element
>
> I was wondering whether it make sense to add a WSDL QNAME 
> (ns:wsdlMsgName) like the following for WSDL 1.1:
>
> $variable/ns:wsdlMsgName/partName/...
>
> then the syntax would be more symmetrically between WSDL 1.1 and 2.0
> ns:wsdlMsgName => ns:element
> partname => subElement
>
> The BPEL code migration may be easier from WSDL 1.1 to 2.0

If anyone has a good handle on where WSDL 2.0 is heading with their 
message definition, would be great to throw some ideas around. Ideally 
if you have a WSDL 2.0 interface that's backward compatible with WSDL 
1.1, you could use the BPEL process with both 1.1 and 2.0 without change.

Assaf


begin:vcard
fn:Assaf Arkin
n:Arkin;Assaf
org:Intalio
adr:;;1900 S. Norfolk St #900;San Mateo;CA;94403;USA
email;internet:arkin@intalio.com
title:Chief Architect
tel;work:650 577 4700
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
url:http://www.intalio.com
version:2.1
end:vcard