[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Issue - R29 - Partner link's initializePartnerRole attribute
I did a little digging through the issues list and meeting
minutes to see where the initializePartnerRole attribute came into the spec. Here’s
the original issue: http://www.choreology.com/external/WS_BPEL_issues_list.html#Issue139.1 The text for this issue was added to the
spec in version 1.77: http://wsbpeltc.cvs.sourceforge.net/*checkout*/wsbpeltc/specifications/wsbpel-specification-draft.doc?revision=1.77 One of the points of contention with this
attribute is that partner link initialization through EPR schemes like
WS-Addressing are grouped in with initialization through an <assign>
activity. It’s worth noting that the final proposal for 139.1 did not
introduce this concept. In fact, the intent of 139.1 was the exact opposite.
Initialization through an EPR scheme would be considered something that the
BPEL programmer would want to declare as a requirement for deployment. This was
the intent according to Yaron’s emails related to the issue (i.e. http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/wsbpel/200506/msg00047.html).
As it turns out, the adopted resolution is not explicit with regard to defining
how a partner link gets initialized and why a programmer would want to use this
attribute. While it seems clear from the emails what the intent was, it didn’t
make it into the spec text. This was changed in version 133 by grouping
partner link initialization through WS-Addressing was with initialization
through an <assign>. This was during the face to face in |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]