Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 11 - Proposal to vote

[Ron Ten-Hove <Ronald.Ten-Hove@Sun.COM>]

Satish,

    The current proposal doesn't affect the extension mechanisms already 
available to vendors to add other transformation technologies. Vendors 
will still have to think out how the data models between the BPEL 
universal and the transformation universe intersect. If a vendor were 
contemplating adding support for a transformation language that used 
XPath 1.0's data model, he might look use the doXslTransform() extension 
function as a guide.

    With Chris's latest change to the proposal, we have a very clean, 
one-way transition between the BPEL and XSLT worlds. In particular it 
leverages all of our hard work nailing down the semantics of issue 103 
(and its friends & relations), leaving us with a very clean hand-off 
between BPEL's XPath 1.0 view of its data model and the XSLT 1.0 
mechanism for communicating "parameters" from the world outside the XSLT 
engine. This leaves us with the relatively simple job of describing a 
straightforward XPath 1.0 extension function.

-Ron

Satish Thatte wrote:

>I admit I haven't followed the recent detailed discussion of 11.  I do
>agree with Dieter point that XSLT is desirable relative to peculiar BPEL
>data manipulation features and also that a 103-like protracted effort
>for semantic naildown is not desirable.  I would like to hear the
>opinion of the currently active participants in the 11 discussion on how
>close we are and much effort it would take to make this XSLT feature a
>foolproof addition to BPEL with the door open for other transformation
>models using infoset terminology, etc.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Dieter Koenig1 [mailto:dieterkoenig@de.ibm.com] 
>Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2005 7:34 AM
>To: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
>Subject: [wsbpel] Issue - 11 - Proposal to vote
>Importance: High
>
>The recent appends related to issue 11 show a lot of interest in
>introducing XSLT under the assign activity. We definitely support the
>idea
>of building on standardized data manipulation languages as opposed to
>inventing our own (which has never been an objective of WS-BPEL).
>
>Without getting into the formal discussion (XSLT has been rejected in
>Issue
>48; XSLT is a major feature and not a bug), we would like bring up some
>of
>our concerns with the current approach. We recognize that there is a lot
>of
>good work being done right now, however, a long process for the c
>larification of the BPEL data access from XSLT (similar to 103 for
>XPath)
>is not really an option if we want to finalize the specification soon.
>
>From this perspective, IBM is still preferring closing 11 without change
>(as proposed by Satish at the last F2F meeting). The use of XSLT is
>already
>enabled based on the assign extensibility, and recommendations for using
>XSLT in their processes could be provided e.g. in a non-normative
>appendix
>section.
>
>Kind Regards
>DK
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
>generates this mail.  You may a link to this group and all your TCs in
>OASIS
>at:
>https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php 
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
>generates this mail.  You may a link to this group and all your TCs in OASIS
>at:
>https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
>
>  
>