[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue 154 - Proposal For Vote
Can you give me an example where a BPEL engine implementer would get confused about what the BPEL engine's responsibilities are based on today's spec? -----Original Message----- From: Yaron Y. Goland [mailto:ygoland@bea.com] Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 12:35 PM To: Satish Thatte Cc: wsbpeltc Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue 154 - Proposal For Vote I'm unclear how you can be so sure that an implementer will come to the same conclusion that as reached in the second paragraph of your mail. After all, there are a number of techniques we could have chosen to use at the abstract layer that would have dealt with some of the ambiguities at the binding layer. But we wisely choose not to try and disambiguate things at the abstract layer because it would be a nasty mess. But that decision is not recorded anywhere in the spec. By explicitly stating that we will not try to disambiguate things at the abstract layer we create a clearer specification. Put another way, what may be clear in your mind will most certainly not be clear in the minds of implementers who will not have your background in the spec. Yaron Satish Thatte wrote: > -1 > > I think this additional language adds no useful content to the > specification. All it says is: WSDL has binding problems and they are > WSDL's problems not ours. > > > Since we only deal with abstract port types and abstract message types, > it is absolutely clear already that it is someone else's responsibility > to "make things right" from the wire layer to the abstract layer. > > Satish > > -----Original Message----- > From: Yaron Y. Goland [mailto:ygoland@bea.com] > Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 12:47 PM > To: wsbpeltc > Subject: [wsbpel] Issue 154 - Proposal For Vote > > Issue 154 - doc/lit & multiple body parts > > Proposal: To put in language that makes explicit what is currently > implicit in the BPEL spec, that it is the binding layer's job to > decompose the physical message into the portType definition. > > Rationale: One of the more basic flaws in spec writing is to make > implicit assumptions. By doing so spec implementers are always left in > the dark because they may not share the same implicit assumptions as the > > spec authors. The fix is to make the implicit assumption explicit which > is what this proposal does. Note, however, that this proposal causes no > normative changes to BPEL's current behavior, it just makes what was > implicit, explicit. > > Changes Required: > > Section 3 - > > Insert new paragraph after the paragraph that begins "While WS-BPEL > attempts to provide as much compatibility with WSDL 1.1 as possible..." > > BPEL assumes that the WSDL binding layer is able to decompose incoming > messages into the parts specified by the WSDL message definition. > However it is know that certain combinations of message definitions and > bindings, including ones defined in the WSDL standard itself, cannot be > decomposed in any standard way. For example, a multi-part WSDL message > where one of the parts is a complexType and a doc/lit SOAP transport can > > create ambiguous situations. The BPEL specification assumes that these > ambiguities will be dealt with at the binding layer, perhaps by > forbidding ambiguous message definitions, and are therefore out of scope > > of BPEL. > > 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_workgr > oup.php. >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]