[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue R48 - Amended Proposal Resolved (both parts)
Hi Diane, I've uploaded the spec with my edits to CVS - updating the TOC, editing in the R48 resolution, updating the footer representation of the document name, and updating the editor's list. Attached is a log of the validation and well-formedness of the WS-BPEL XSDs. Cheers, -Charlton. -----Original Message----- From: Monica.Martin@Sun.COM [mailto:Monica.Martin@Sun.COM] Sent: 24 January 2007 10:41 To: Diane Jordan Cc: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: [wsbpel] Issue R48 - Amended Proposal Resolved (both parts) Resolution to R48 - as agreed on TC call Jan 24 in two parts (combined herein): 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>. At most one <toPart> exists for each part in the WSDL message definition....[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 * Update SA00050 in Appendix B as proposed (as it uses this text 'When <toParts> is...rejected by static analysis.'). Futures (part of discussion but not the proposal) * Consider how to more effectively reference static analysis requirements so renumbering / rearranging work is minimized and references are consistent across those changes. This may be addressed later in a Maintenance mode.
Validated and checked for well-formedness with Altova XMLSpy 2007Sp1 on 2007jan24: File ...\ws-bpel\specifications\SchemaFiles\wsbpel_main.xsd is well-formed. File ...\ws-bpel\specifications\SchemaFiles\wsbpel_main.xsd is valid. File ...\ws-bpel\specifications\SchemaFiles\wsbpel_msgprop.xsd is well-formed. File ...\ws-bpel\specifications\SchemaFiles\wsbpel_msgprop.xsd is valid. File ...\ws-bpel\specifications\SchemaFiles\wsbpel_plinkType.xsd is well-formed. File ...\ws-bpel\specifications\SchemaFiles\wsbpel_plinkType.xsd is valid. File ...\ws-bpel\specifications\SchemaFiles\wsbpel_serviceref.xsd is well-formed. File ...\ws-bpel\specifications\SchemaFiles\wsbpel_serviceref.xsd is valid.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]