RE: [wsbpel] Issue 103 - Good Idea!

["Satish Thatte" <satisht@microsoft.com>]

I am having trouble keeping up with this fast moving discussion.  I am
hoping that you will reach an agreement and then educate the mere
mortals among us on what the consensus proposal is ..

Satish

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Assaf Arkin [mailto:arkin@intalio.com] 
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 7:59 PM
To: Alex Yiu
Cc: wsbpeltc; Satish Thatte; ygoland@bea.com
Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue 103 - Good Idea!


> (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