RE: [wsbpel] Issue 103 - Good Idea!

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

I imagine that expression= is as relevant to "to" as to "from" ..

 -----Original Message-----
From: Maciej Szefler [mailto:mbs@fivesight.com] 
Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 8:47 AM
To: Dieter Roller; Satish Thatte
Cc: Alex Yiu; Assaf Arkin; wsbpeltc; ygoland@bea.com
Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue 103 - Good Idea!

I haven't followed this discussion too closely, but am I correct in 
inferring that if these suggestion were adopted, we could eliminate most

of the from-specs in the assign activity? Could we normalize assignment
to 
the following

   <copy>
      <to variable="msgVar"/>
      <from expression="$otherMsgVar"/>
   </copy>

could be used to assign a message variable.

   <copy>
      <to variable="simpleTypeVar"/>
      <from expression="$msgVar/msg/simplePart"/>
   </copy>

   <copy>
      <to variable="simpleTypeVar"/>
      <from expression="$otherSimpleTypeVar"/>
   </copy>

could be used to assign a simple variable

   <copy>
      <to variable="elementVar"/>
      <from expression="$msgVar/msg/elementPartType"/>
   </copy>
   <copy>
      <to variable="elementVar"/>
      <from expression="$otherElementVar"/>
   </copy>

could be used to assign an element variable.

-maciej




On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 07:23:35 +0100, Dieter Roller <ROL@de.ibm.com>
wrote:

>
>
>
>
> +1
>
> Cheers,
>
> dieter
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>              "Satish Thatte"
>              <satisht@microsof
>              t.com>

> To
>                                        "Assaf Arkin"
<arkin@intalio.com>,
>              03/12/2004 05:14          "Alex Yiu"
<alex.yiu@oracle.com>
>              AM

> cc
>                                        "wsbpeltc"
>                                        <wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org>,
>                                        <ygoland@bea.com>
>
Subject
>                                        RE: [wsbpel] Issue 103 - Good 
> Idea!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> 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/leave_workgr
oup.php
> .
>
>
>
>
> 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/leave_workgr
oup.php.
>



-- 
Maciej Szefler [mbs(a)fivesight.com] [+1-312-432-0556x226]