[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: New Issue - <toPart>s and Anonymous WSDL Variables Clarification (PR2)
Title: <toPart>s and Anonymous WSDL variables clarification (PR2) Target: WS-BPEL v2.0 Specification PR2 Draft Description: In Section 10.3.1, the use of <toPart> and <fromPart> is described. However, conflicting information exists in <toPart> copy mechanics given the normative requirement included in SA00050. This may be a cut-paste error during construction of this section. In addition, it is inferred that only one <toPart> should exist for each part in the WSDL message definition and this should be explicit. Both these should be addressed in the Public Review2 to ensure proper use of these capabilities. Proposal: Section 10.3.1: Change from: The <toPart> elements, as a group, act as the single virtual <assign>, with each <toPart> acting as a <copy>....[existing static analysis requirement SA00050] When <toParts> is present in an <invoke>, it is not required to have a <toPart> for every part in the WSDL message definition, nor is the order in which parts are specified relevant. Parts not explicitly represented by <toPart> elements would result in uninitialized parts in the target anonymous WSDL variable used by the <invoke> or <reply> activity. Such processes with missing <toPart> elements MUST be rejected during static analysis. Change to: ...The <toPart> elements, as a group, act as the single virtual <assign>, with each <toPart> acting as a <copy>. [add sentence] [add Static Analysis Requirement] At most one <toPart> exists for each part in the WSDL message definition. If a process includes more than one <toPart> for each part in the WSDL message definition, that process MUST be rejected by static analysis.[end sentence]... [updated static analysis requirement SA00050] When <toParts> is present, it is required to have a <toPart> for every part in the WSDL message definition; the order in which parts are specified is irrelevant. Parts not explicitly represented by <toPart> elements would result in uninitialized parts in the target anonymous WSDL variable used by the <invoke> or <reply> activity. Such processes with missing <toPart> elements MUST be rejected during static analysis. Appendix B 1. Effect changes above as stated - Add one new static analysis requirement and correct SA00050. 2. Renumber static analysis requirements or consider adding the new static analysis requirement at the end of the list to minimize changes required. Notes: * This issue doesn't specifically reference the known but rare case when there could be multiple toPart from the same BPEL variable. An example would be if the process always assumes the ship-to and billing addresses are the same, the same address variable could be copied to both the ship-to and billing address parts of the anonymous PO message. * Renumbering of static analysis requirements may be laborious; perhaps another option could be used to enable their effective use in the specification and by users. References: Current draft for PR2: http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/21575/wsbpel-specification_public_review_draft_2_diff.pdf Public Review schema changes for PR2: http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/21724/xsd%20changes%20for%20second%20public%20review.zip 15 day announcement: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wsbpel/200701/msg00004.html
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]