Re: [wsbpel] usage of <partner> in BPEL?

["Yaron Y. Goland" <ygoland@bea.com>]

If a feature has at best speculative value then we should err on the 
side of cutting it. Therefore I think we should cut partners.

	Yaron

Francisco Curbera wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Alex,
> 
> I don't see partners as a deployment detail, even though they (like
> everything else in a BPEL process) would need to be resolved at deployment
> time. If anything, partner belongs to a higher level of abstraction than
> partner links, since the intent was to capture business relationships
> between partner links which are not reflected on how port types (nor
> bindings) are factored. It certainly doesn't belong at the lower layer of
> WSDL bindings.
> 
> However, I think that it is a legitimate question whether partner adds
> sufficient value to BPEL, particularly since there is no single way we can
> point at for using that information. My own opinion would be to keep it
> because it allows embedding relevant business constraints into the process
> definition.
> 
> Paco
> 
> 
> 
>                                                                                                                                         
> 
> 
>                       Alex 
> Yiu                                                                                                          
> 
> 
>                       <alex.yiu@oracle.        To:       
> wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org                                                    
> 
> 
>                       com>                     cc:       Alex Yiu 
> <alex.yiu@oracle.com>                                                
> 
>                                                Subject:  [wsbpel] usage 
> of <partner> in BPEL?                                          
> 
>                       06/28/2004 
> 08:19                                                                                                  
> 
> 
>                       
> PM                                                                                                                
> 
> 
>                                                                                                                                         
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> We define <partnerLink> and <partner> in BPEL.
> The usage of <partnerLink> is very clear in BPEL. (e.g. invoke relies on
> partnerLink).
> 
> However, the usage of <partner> is not clear.
> Is it more like a deployment related information?
> Should it be a part of WSDL binding?
> There are not other BPEL construct make uses of <partner> declaration.
> 
> I have done a very informal poll to a number of vendors last week at
> BPEL F2F in SF.
> It seems to me that no particular vendor is actively making use of
> <partner>
> 
> Any further thoughts?
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Alex Yiu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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_workgroup.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_workgroup.php. 
> 
>