Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 82.3 - AP 1.1 definition to be refactored asa profile.

[Rania Khalaf <rkhalaf@watson.ibm.com>]

Hi all,

Right now in the common base we require that any AP, regardless of 
profile, satisfy the 'at least one basic executable completion'. The 
latter consists of only replacing opaque tokens (including those omitted 
coz of omission-shortcut). However, the omission-shortcut applies only 
to items that would otherwise be required *by the XML schema* (example: 
activity in a fault handler).

Issue 82 has a placeholder to make the relaxation on this needed to 
allow profiles to omit the createInstance receive, and that was tied to 
issue 92.

So, allowing createInstance receive to be omitted will affect the base 
definition. Otherwise, the basic executable completion will always fail 
to create a valid executable BPEL and no profile could use it :(

I hope that clarifies.

Thanks,
Rania


Monica J Martin wrote:

> Rania Khalaf wrote:
>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> Here is a summary of the main points of the AP1.1 profile.
>> I would like to do two rounds of this:
>>
>> One to agree on the  'meat' (points below), and another of the spec 
>> wording/motivation/etc..
>> Like what we did for main 82.
>>
>> The main idea here was to make the AP1.1 into a profile, and adding a 
>> completions section that is based on the idea of keeping the messages 
>> exchange order the same.
>> <<<........................(Suggested Changes):
>> * Allow leaving out the createInstance receive. (This is Issue 99: and
>>  affects both this profile and the common base.  Note that 82 already
>>  has a plug-point for the resolution of 99 as far as the base is
>>  concerned). >>>
>
>
> mm1: This constraint should be part of the AP v1.1 not the common base 
> itslef.
>