Re: [wsbpel] Initial example violates SA00050?

[Alex Yiu <alex.yiu@oracle.com>]

Hi Thomas and others,


Quick gut feeling response.

I don't think the example violates the fault naming requirement imposed by the spec.

"This results in a fault identified in WS-BPEL by a QName formed by the target namespace of the corresponding portType and the fault name. To ensure uniqueness, this uniform naming mechanism MUST be followed  even though it does not match the WSDL’s fault-naming model ..."

IMHO, it does NOT imply or enforce that the faultName QName must be unique by across all portTypes.

However, I agree that the underlined sentence sounds a bit ambiguous to me. That is what is the uniqueness it is referring to???

"This results in a fault identified in WS-BPEL by a QName formed by the target namespace of the corresponding portType and the fault name. To ensure consistent fault identification, this uniform naming mechanism MUST be followed  even though it does not match the WSDL’s fault-naming model ..."

**IF** the sentence did enforce that the faultName QName must be unique by across all portTypes, the semantic would be very strange. When mapped to OOP world, interfaces of the same package cannot throw the same Exception?

Thomas ... if you disagree with my interpretation, we may need to open our last BPEL issue on that. (sorry to john and diane in advance)

Thanks!


Regards,
Alex Yiu


Thomas Schulze wrote:

The initial example in 5.1 introduces the WSDL fault 'cannotCompleteOrder'
two times, one for portType 'purchaseOrderPT' operation 'sendPurchaseOrder'
and one for portType 'shippingPT' operation 'requestShipping'. This
violates SA00050 (v26 of the SA List):

"In the case of a request-response invocation, the operation might return a
WSDL fault message. This results in a fault identified in WS-BPEL by a
QName formed by the target namespace of the corresponding portType and the
fault name. To ensure uniqueness, this uniform naming mechanism MUST be
followed even though it does not match the WSDL’s fault-naming model."

Should this be fixed before the freeze? If yes, some adaptions to 5.6 are
necessary, too...

Best regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen,

       Thomas Schulze