[wsbpel] Are WSDL descriptions always required for abstract processes

["Tony Fletcher" <tony_fletcher@btopenworld.com>]

Title: Message

Dear Kevin (and others),

 

Thank you for responding, and no I did not receive your first attempt - I have cut the extra from below to save space - thanking for sending again.

 

I admit to playing 'devil's advocate' a little as BPEL is an execution language.

 

However, that gets to the point I am trying to establish.  Section 3 is making 'political' statements of direction - fair enough.  For an executable BPEL process  there is clear need for the technical dependency on WSDL descriptions.  Not debating that.

 

So my question is do all the WSDL descriptions have to be generated from the start, or can they be generated as part of the process of going from an abstract process description to an executable one?  If they are required for abstract processes as well then how many and which ones- see example below.

 

So to sum up what I am asking is:  What are the real requirements for, and dependencies on WSDL descriptions for the most abstract of *abstract* processes that BPEL allows?

 

Best Regards     Tony

A M Fletcher

Home: 35, Wimborne Avenue, IPSWICH  IP3  8QW

Tel: +44 (0) 1473 729537   Mobile: +44 (0) 7801 948219

 amfletcher@iee.org     (also tony.fletcher@talk21.com  &  tony_fletcher@btopenworld.com)

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Liu, Kevin
Sent: Tuesday, Apr 27, 2004 02:39 PM
To: 'Tony Fletcher'; wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Are WSDL descriptions always required for abstract processes

HI Tony,

 

BPEL spec section 3 clearly states its dependency on WSDL1.1. As one example of the dependency, partnerlinktypes are defined as WSDL extensions. how a process can be constructed without a partnerlink?

 

Best Regards,
Kevin
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Tony Fletcher [mailto:tony_fletcher@btopenworld.com]
Sent: Tuesday, Apr 27, 2004 07:05 AM
To: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [wsbpel] Are WSDL descriptions always required for abstract processes

Dear Colleagues,

 

I would like to see if there is a simple and agreed answer to this question or whether I should raise as an issue (or add in to an existing issue such as 82 or 97).

 

My question is:

Are WSDL descriptions *always* required for abstract processes.  Is the answer clear and correct in the specification?

 

Imagine an process (A) that communicates with three remote processes (B), (C), (D).  Is it possible to produce an abstract process BPEL description on its own (one XML document) that conforms to the schema and to the letter and spirit of the textual specification, or is it required to always produce WSDL descriptions as well - if so how many and for what?  Three one for each of the 'A' ends of the A-B, A-C and A-D relationships, three one for each of the 'B', 'C' and 'D' ends of the A-B, A-C and A-D relationships respectively, or all of these making six in total?

 

The spirit of section 15.1 (and especially the second paragraph) might be taken to suggest that the WSDL descriptions are not required.

 

However, as Ugo has pointed out to me, the portType attribute is a qualified name type and is a required attribute on invoke, receive and reply, which implies that mechanistically the WDSL descriptions are required at present.

 

What say you Senators?

 

Best Regards,

Tony                          

	Tony Fletcher Technical Advisor Choreology Ltd. 68, Lombard Street, London EC3V 9L J   UK
	Phone:	+44 (0) 1473 729537
	Mobile:	+44 (0) 7801 948219
	Fax:	+44 (0) 870 7390077
	Web:	www.choreology.com
Cohesions(tm)
Business transaction management software for application coordination
Work: tony.fletcher@choreology.com
Home: amfletcher@iee.org