I think the issue text describes the question that
I would like resolved. It is true that this covers two cases:
1. The locations are different and the contents are
different.
2. The locations are different but the contents are
the same.
The first case is the one that motivated the issue.
I would also expect resolution of this issue to determine whether the second
case is illegal or just silly.
Jim Clune Parasoft
Corporation email: jim.clune@parasoft.com101 E.
Huntington Ave. voice: (626) 256-3680 Monrovia,
CA. 91016
fax : (626) 256-6884
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 9:29
AM
Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 174 - Are
multiple imports with the same namespace allowed?
Jim,
Thanks for
clarification. However, as captured the issue does not state that. Here is
what is stated in the issue text:
"Is it legal to have a BPEL process with two BPEL import elements
each pointing to WSDLs of the same namespace, but different locations?
The Document Linking section of the spec does not explicitly disallow this."
If that is not what you are raising then we need to restate the issue
IMO.
Regards, Prasad
Jim Clune wrote:
Just to clarify, Danny's interpretation is what
I had in mind when submitting the issue. I
agree with both of you that this is different than question 4 of Issue
88.
Jim Clune Parasoft
Corporation email: jim.clune@parasoft.com 101 E.
Huntington Ave. voice: (626)
256-3680 Monrovia, CA.
91016 fax
: (626) 256-6884
-----
Original Message -----
Sent:
Monday, October 25, 2004 4:49 PM
Subject:
Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 174 - Are multiple imports with the same namespace
allowed?
Danny van der Rijn wrote:
i thought
that this issue was whether 2 separate things that are imported from
different files can have the same namespace.
As I read
it, it is speaking to the issue of importing two WSDL files that have the
same (target) namespace. Importing the same file more than once for
example falls in the same category.
but i agree
that when i read question 4, it's different.
Prasad Yendluri
wrote:
It
seems to me question 4 of issue 88 and this one are different though
related issues.
Question 4 is speaking to a (particular)
definition imported via two different files (directly, indirectly etc.
I take). Where as this issue has to do with, can one import the
same (WSDL) file twice.
Regards, Prasad
--------
Original Message --------
Isn't this issue addressed in question 4 of issue 88?
ws-bpel issues list editor wrote:
> This issue has been added to the wsbpel issue list with a status of "received".
> The status will be changed to "open" if the TC accepts it as identifying a bug
> in the spec or decides it should be accepted specially. Otherwise it will be
> closed without further consideration (but will be marked as "Revisitable")
>
> The issues list is posted as a Technical Committee document to the OASIS WSBPEL
> TC pages <http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel> on a regular
> basis. The current edition, as a TC document, is the most recent version of the
> document entitled ** in the "Issues" folder of the WSBPEL TC document list
> <http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel/documents.php> - the next
> posting as a TC document will include this issue. The list editor's working
> copy, which will normally include an issue when it is announced, is available at
> this constant URL <http://www.choreology.com/external/WS_BPEL_issues_list.html>.
>
>
> Issue - 174 - Are multiple imports with the same namespace allowed?
>
> *Status:* received
> *Date added:* 23 Oct 2004
> *Categories:* Related standards <#category_related_standards>
> *Date submitted:* 27 September 2004
> *Submitter:* Jim Clune <mailto:jim@parasoft.com>
> *Description:* Is it legal to have a BPEL process with two BPEL import elements
> each pointing to WSDLs of the same namespace, but different locations? The
> Document Linking section of the spec does not explicitly disallow this. One
> might interpret this situation as legal, and one might further interpret
> references to WSDL elements within such a process as resolving so long as each
> element resolves to one of the imported WSDLs for that namespace.
>
> The text should be clear.
> *Changes:* 23 Oct 2004 - new issue
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> To comment on this issue (including whether it should be accepted), please
> follow-up to this announcement on the wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org list (replying
> to this message should automatically send your message to that list), or ensure
> the subject line as you send it *starts* "Issue - 174 - [anything]" or is a
> reply to such a message. If you want to formally propose a resolution to an open
> issue, please start the subject line "Issue - 174 - Proposed resolution",
> without any Re: or similar.
>
> To add a new issue, see the issues procedures document (but the address for new
> issue submission is the sender of this announcement).
>
>
> Choreology Anti virus scan completed
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.
|