OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

wsbpel message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: Re: [wsbpel] inputVariable optional on Invoke


Prasad, what I don't understand from your mails is where you see us 
trying to make the WSDL message object itself optional?

In a world without issue 12 I believe that inputVariable is always 
mandatory and we should change the text.

In a world with issue 12 it would seem natural to extend issue 12 to 
specify that if a WSDL message has no parts then one doesn't have to 
specify an inputVariable on invokes because it is possible to fully 
derive the expected WSDL message object definition directly from the 
operation's associated WSDL.

In all cases the WSDL message object is fully and correctly defined.

	Thanks,

		Yaron


Prasad Yendluri wrote:

>   Ugo,
> 
> I was pointing out that R2202 only permits 'zero parts in the 
> wsdl:message'. It does not permit not supplying a wsdl:message as input 
> or output of an operation. When there is a void() input or output on an 
> operation, one still needs to model the operation with a wsdl:message 
> that has no parts. Hence the point is that R2202 can not be used to 
> infer that the wsdl:message and hence deduce that the inputVariable to 
> invoke (or receive or reply etc. for that matter) can be optional. I 
> think we still need to supply the a wsdl:message with no parts, unless 
> we add explicit text to clarify that aspect. My preference would be to 
> require the input variable always, so that WSDL and BPEL stay consistent 
> (while being conformant with WS-I BP).
> 
> Regards, Prasad
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: 	RE: [wsbpel] inputVariable optional on Invoke
> Date: 	Fri, 16 Jul 2004 13:33:48 -0700
> From: 	Ugo Corda <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com> <mailto:UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>
> To: 	Prasad Yendluri <pyendluri@webmethods.com> 
> <mailto:pyendluri@webmethods.com>, Ron Ten-Hove 
> <Ronald.Ten-Hove@Sun.COM> <mailto:Ronald.Ten-Hove@Sun.COM>
> CC: 	<ygoland@bea.com> <mailto:ygoland@bea.com>, "wsbpeltc" 
> <wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org> <mailto:wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org>
> 
> 
> 
> Prasad,
> An absent inputVariable does not necessarily imply that there should be 
> no envelope. It could just mean that the inputVariable, if present, 
> would not bring any useful information that would have any visible 
> effect on the message being sent out (which, I think, is the case when 
> the inputVariable points to a message with zero parts).
>  
> Ugo  
> 
>     -----Original Message-----
>     *From:* Prasad Yendluri [mailto:pyendluri@webmethods.com]
>     *Sent:* Friday, July 16, 2004 12:22 PM
>     *To:* Ron Ten-Hove
>     *Cc:* ygoland@bea.com <mailto:ygoland@bea.com>; wsbpeltc
>     *Subject:* Re: [wsbpel] inputVariable optional on Invoke
> 
>     Ron,
> 
>     This is only permits zero parts in the wsdl:message or the soap:body
>     (binding level) being empty. This does not say the wsdl:message or
>     the soap:envelope itself can be totally absent. Hence we can not
>     interpret that to imply the inputVariable can be absent. It can be
>     empty or void of  payload (body) content and with WSDL 1.1 headers
>     can be present in the soap:envelope coming from other wsdl:messages 
>     etc.
> 
>     Regards, Prasad ||
> 
>     Ron Ten-Hove wrote:
> 
>>         When faced with the oddities of WSDL 1.1, I usually consult my
>>     copy of the WS-I Basic Profile. Even though it is SOAP-centric, it
>>     does have a lot to say about service declarations. The BP 1.0
>>     doesn't recognize (and clarify) the contradiction you found
>>     (concerning the cardinality of message parts), but I find this:
>>
>>     From section 5.3.1 (Bindings and Parts):
>>
>>         Use of |wsdl:message| elements with zero parts is permitted in
>>         Document styles to permit operations that can send or receive
>>         messages with empty |soap:Body|s. Use of |wsdl:message|
>>         elements with zero parts is permitted in RPC styles to permit
>>         operations that have no (zero) parameters and/or a return value.
>>
>>         I'd say we have the WS-I's blessing on leaving the
>>     inputVariable as optional. Other implementations of SOAP may have
>>     different interpretations, but allowing the inputVariable to be
>>     optional is the most general choice, and will cover such
>>     implementations as well.
>>
>>     -Ron
>>
>>     Yaron Y. Goland wrote:
>>
>>>     Executive Summary: Antony Miguel, in a private e-mail, pointed
>>>     out that the inputVariable attribute on invoke is currently
>>>     optional. In BPEL as it now is specified this doesn't make sense
>>>     as all operations MUST have a WSDL message associated with them.
>>>     But if issue 12 passes then the optional inputVariable makes
>>>     sense in cases where the message has no parts. Unfortunately the
>>>     WSDL 1.1 spec seems to contradict itself on the legality of
>>>     partless messages.
>>>
>>>     Long Winded Version:
>>>
>>>     Antony Miguel, in a private e-mail with me, pointed out that the
>>>     inputVariable attribute is optional on invokes. Given that all
>>>     invoke MEPs MUST have an outgoing message does it make sense to
>>>     have the attribute be optional?
>>>
>>>     The only scenario I can come up with where it makes sense to not
>>>     have an inputVariable attribute is if the outgoing message is
>>>     'empty'. This is not a completely insane idea. Some protocols do
>>>     have 'empty' messages which have an address header but no body.
>>>     This could be used for things like pings.
>>>
>>>     But all BPEL messages have to be sent using a WSDL message
>>>     structure and it isn't possible to define an operation that
>>>     doesn't point at a message. However it MAY be legal to define a
>>>     WSDL message with no parts. There is a contradiction between the
>>>     text in WSDL 1.1 and the schema. The text in section 2.3 says
>>>     "Messages consist of one or more logical parts.". But the
>>>     psuedo-schema in 2.3 says:
>>>
>>>     <definitions .... >
>>>         <message name="nmtoken"> *
>>>             <part name="nmtoken" element="qname"? type="qname"?/> *
>>>         </message>
>>>     </definitions>
>>>
>>>     Furthermore the XML Schema in the appendix says:
>>>
>>>        <complexType name="messageType">
>>>           <complexContent>
>>>              <extension base="wsdl:documented">
>>>                 <sequence>
>>>                    <element ref="wsdl:part" minOccurs="0"
>>>                             maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
>>>                 </sequence>
>>>                 <attribute name="name" type="NCName" use="required"/>
>>>              </extension>
>>>           </complexContent>
>>>        </complexType>
>>>
>>>     Assuming the schema triumphs then this means that it is legal to
>>>     define a message with no parts. An empty message.
>>>
>>>     But this still leaves the problem that BPEL requires that all
>>>     messages be contained in a WSDL container. This alone would
>>>     require that invoke MUST always have an inputVariable attribute.
>>>
>>>     But, if issue 12 passes, then it would make sense to make
>>>     inputVariable optional to cover the case where the message for an
>>>     operation has no parts. 
>>
> 


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]