[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue 88 - Proposal to vote
Alex, I am having doubts about the need for non-transitive import. Your example [1] illustrates something that is discussed clearly in WSDL 2.0. The use of <include> and <import> in WSDL are mechanisms to divide whole, complete, internally consistent logical service descriptions into physically separate modules. This separation is very pragmatic: it facilitates composition of service descriptions from physically separate pieces. Assuming WSDL 2.0 is consistent with XML Schema (which speaks of assembling schema documents) and WSDL 1.1 (which describes using import to modularize descriptions) in this regard, I think that non-transitive import is clearly contrary to the intent of these specifications. BPEL must deal with whole, complete, consistent service descriptions (down to the portType/interface level). This requires transitive import to properly reconstitute the logical service description. Put another way, why should how a service description (or schema) is divided into physical modules affect BPEL's perception of the logical service (or schema) described? Should remodularising a service description (without affecting the logical service description) cause a previously valid BPEL process definition to become invalid? The second example [2], showing an internally inconsistent service/schema description, clearly illustrates one of the hazards of modularising service descriptions. A robust implementation of a Schema or WSDL processor must obviously guard against multiple definitions of the same component (as opposed to multiple includes/imports of the same document). -Ron Alex Yiu wrote:
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]