[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue - R29 - Partner link's initializePartnerRole attribute
We should fix the examples in any case since as I explained they seem wrong. But I have other concerns in the way this is currently specified. * From what we see from our customers today is that greater than 80% of the cases would require initializePartnerRole="yes", which isn't the default. Most people would prefer defaults to be the most common case. * The WS-Addressing type scenario should be considered a special case of the environment initializing the partnerLink. We have called it out in the same way as an assign initializing the partnerLink, which seems wrong. * If the user has assigned to a partnerLink directly static analysis can easily find this. So there is no extra reason to document the intent there. If a user has said initializePartnerRole="no" or left it blank since "no" is the default then deployer must use an address style binding if no assign is found. What if the process is like our loanApprovalProcess where the partnerLink's first use is an invoke activity and in addition has no corresponding myRole, should we have a static analysis error saying "invalid initializePartnerRole setting" when it is "no" or not specified? Finally this is one of two place we discuss deployment environments in the specification. And the other place says the following (from sec 1): "The description of the deployment of a WS-BPEL process is out of scope for this specification." Should we amend this to say except for restrictions due to initializingPartnerRole settings? Regards, Chris Keller -----Original Message----- From: Dieter Koenig1 [mailto:dieterkoenig@de.ibm.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 5:33 AM To: Alex Yiu Cc: Alex Yiu; chris.keller@active-endpoints.com; 'Mark Ford'; 'wsbpeltc' Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue - R29 - Partner link's initializePartnerRole attribute +1 (using initializePartnerRole as a statement of intent). I am also in favor of adding initializePartnerRole to the WS-BPEL examples. Kind Regards DK Dieter König Mail: dieterkoenig@de.ibm.com IBM Deutschland Entwicklung GmbH Senior Technical Staff Member Tel (office): (+49) 7031-16-3426 Schönaicher Strasse 220 Architect, Business Process Choreographer Fax (office): (+49) 7031-16-4890 71032 Böblingen Member, Technical Expert Council Tel (home office): (+49) 7032-201464 Germany Alex Yiu <alex.yiu@oracle. com> To chris.keller@active-endpoints.com 07.11.2006 07:05 cc "'Mark Ford'" <mark.ford@active-endpoints.com>, "'wsbpeltc'" <wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org>, Alex Yiu <alex.yiu@oracle.com> Subject Re: [wsbpel] Issue - R29 - Partner link's initializePartnerRole attribute Hi Chris, The application of "initializePartnerRole" to "loanApprovalProcess" example in section "15.3.2. Process" is actually relatively simple. I would say we just forgot reviewing the need to add "initializePartnerRole" in those complete process example, when we passed the issue of adding "initializePartnerRole" to the spec. (Hence, to me the resolution of R29 is to apply "initializePartnerRole" appropriately to our process sample, instead of removing the "initializePartnerRole" attribute). In the "loanApprovalProcess" example in section 15.3.2, partnerLinkType for "customer" partnerLink has only one role. That is, myRole for "customer" partnerLink. Hence, initializePartnerRole attribute is NOT applicable to this partnerLink. For the case of partnerLinks "accessor" and "approvers", they are in the same boat. There are no <assign> activities on partnerRoles of partnerLink and there are no other activities performed on these two partnerLinks (hence WS-Addressing like mechanism is not applicable either). Therefore, we need to set "initializePartnerRole" = yes on these partnerLinks. For the process example in section 5.1, partnerLinks "purchasing": initializePartnerRole N/A "invoicing": initializePartnerRole="yes" "shipping": initializePartnerRole="yes" "scheduling": initializePartnerRole="yes" For example in section 13.4.5, partnerLinks "homeInfoVerifier": initializePartnerRole="##opaque" (as most of partnerLink declaration is opaque) For the process example in section 15.1.3, partnerLinks "customer": This is an AP11-profile abstract process. The initializePartnerRole should be set to "no" or leave it as default. For the process example in section 15.2, partnerLinks (another template abstract process) "ordering": initializePartnerRole N/A "orderingResponse": initializePartnerRole="no" "shipper": initializePartnerRole="yes" "shipperResponse": initializePartnerRole N/A "shipperRequester": initializePartnerRole N/A "invoiceProcessor": initializePartnerRole N/A "invoiceResponse": initializePartnerRole="no" "orderingConfirmation": initializePartnerRole="no" [***Side note: After reviewing the example in section 15.2, I think there are some changes needed which are not related to Issue R29 in general: (a) Syntax correction from: <condition>"##opaque"</condition> to: <condition opaque="yes" /> (b) Rectified opaque from spec usage: (because of another bug fix in other part of the spec) <from opaque="yes" /> to <opaqueFrom /> (c) Simplify partnerLink usage: The number of partnerLink used in this example is a bit too many. It makes the example harder to understand. I would suggest to combine some of them. "ordering" + "orderingResponse" + "orderingConfirmation" => "ordering" (initializePartnerRole="no") "shipper" + "shipperResponse" => "shipper" (initializePartnerRole="yes") "invoiceProcessor" + "invoiceResponse" => "invoiceProcessor" (initializePartnerRole="no") "shipperRequester" unchanged (initializePartnerRole="no") ***] For the process example in section 15.4, partnerLinks: "seller": initializePartnerRole="no" (explicit assign is used) "buyer": initializePartnerRole="no" (explicit assign is used) "auctionRegistrationService": initializePartnerRole="yes" Thanks! Regards, Alex Yiu Chris Keller wrote: Alex, I agree with Mark we should just eliminate the initializePartnerRole attribute. If it is useful for expressing intent we should use it in our examples, but we do not. The loanApprovalProcess example from section 15.3 in my opinion is a place where it should be set to “yes”. The process is created by receiving a request from a partnerLink named “customer” and then immediately invokes on a partnerLink “approver”. Leaving it unset is the same as “no” (per 6.2) and implies the “approver” partnerLink is set in one of the following 2 ways (from section 6.2): • Business logic expressed in the process definition • Auto-assignment of EPR logic in an underlying EPR scheme, such as the reply-to feature in WS-Addressing The first bullet isn’t happening as the process doesn’t directly assign the “approver” partnerLink a value. And the second doesn’t make sense based on the use case (I have never seen a business process where a “customer” sends credit info and tells the system where to approve it). If the WS-BPEL processor (aka the elephant, which isn’t allowed to set it per section 6.2) isn’t setting it then what is? Alex wrote: “Without this attribute, it will be much harder to determine the intent of a partnerLink by static analysis of a process definition.” If we can’t agree how and where to use this flag to specify intent appropriately in our own examples how will BPEL users? Regards, Chris Keller From: Alex Yiu [mailto:alex.yiu@oracle.com] Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 3:14 PM To: Mark Ford Cc: 'wsbpeltc'; Alex Yiu Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue - R29 - Partner link's initializePartnerRole attribute Hi Mark, I would like to respond to a particular point: Mark wrote: Setting a value for the initializePartnerRole attribute requires an understanding of the specific service-ref implementation for the process as well as its deployment environment. Your statement above just covers some advanced cases of initializePartnerRole usage. I want to stress that initializePartnerRole can be used in a fashion that is totally independent of the underlying addressing mechanism. In other words, initializePartnerRole can be used without involving WS-Addressing like situation. Example #1, if someone wants to design a loan approval process, one of the partnerLink is used to obtain the credit rating of a loan applicant. The process designer wants to express the intent that the partnerRole of that credit-rating partnerLink needs to be initialized. The usage of this initializePartnerRole can be as simple as that. :-) In this particular case, the process designer does NOT need to consider any WS-Addressing-like mechanism or details of deployment environment. Example #2, using the same loan approval process as the example, the partnerLink that is used in the start operation may be bi-directional. It may have a partnerRole for callback to signal loan approval result. In that case, the process designer will typically leave out initializePartnerRole unspecified, which is by default "no", if the process designer adds an explicit <assign> logic to initialize that partnerRole OR the process designer expects some sorts of a WS-Addressing reply-to mechanism is involved for that particular partnerRole. Without this attribute, it will be much harder to determine the intent of a partnerLink by static analysis of a process definition. Thanks! Regards, Alex Yiu
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]