[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 103 - Moving Forward
The proposal would specify that the $ syntax would be available for non-messageType variables only. For the moment I don't intend to restrict getVariableData for messageType only variables because I hope we will come up with a resolution for the messageType issue that allows us to get rid of getVariableData. The point of having a partial proposal is to let us make progress. We can agree on the parts we agree on and get them voted on and then use that as a foundation for moving forward on the issues of messageType and property access. Yaron Satish Thatte wrote: > > > So if I understand this correctly, you are proposing that we do two > things with the partial resolution > > 1. Allow BPEL variables of XML types/elements to be bound into XPath > using the $ notation > > 2. Define the BPEL context for XPath more precisely including > differentiating normal vs join expressions > > I certainly support 2. I am a bit concerned about a schizophrenic > resolution of variable binding. One of the reasons I liked the $ > notation was that it clearly defined the point of binding, eliminating > any races (at least in my naïve understanding of XPath) in cases of > multiple occurrences of getVariableData in an expression, which is > evaluated concurrently with updates to those variables. Now we would > have a split brain on this issue. > > Satish > > -----Original Message----- > From: Danny van der Rijn [mailto:dannyv@tibco.com] > Sent: Monday, September 27, 2004 9:27 AM > Cc: wsbpeltc > Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 103 - Moving Forward > > +1 > > Alex Yiu wrote: > > > > > A big +1 from me. > > > > Regards, > > Alex Yiu > > > > > > Yaron Y. Goland wrote: > > > >> Any time a proposal gets too big it can be difficult to make progress > >> because too many issues get mixed up together. As such I propose that > >> we break issue 103 into separate proposals, much as we did with issue > >> 10. > >> > >> The first proposal I think should go out for a vote would be a > >> modified version of the current 103 proposal that removes the WSDL > >> binding to XPATH variables, keeps the getVariableData function and > >> doesn't change the current from-specs and to-specs. > >> > >> This proposal would just include the binding of non-WSDL BPEL > >> variables to XPATH variables along with defining the XPATH > >> environment in which various BPEL expressions execute. > >> > >> Then when we settle exactly how we would like to model WSDL variables > >> we can decide the future of getVariableData(), how WSDL variables > >> will appear in XPATH (including any special forms for doc/lit), if we > >> would like to allow properties to be bound to variables, what > >> from-spec and to-specs we want to use, etc. > >> > >> I believe that by breaking this problem up into discrete issues we > >> can make more rapid progress. > >> > >> What does the group think? > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> Yaron > >> > >> 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. > > > > > > > > > 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. > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]