[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Issue - R45 - BPEL partner link assignments (revisit issue R13)
Dieter Koenig1/Germany/IBM@IBMDE
01/25/2007 08:55 AM |
|
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 |
ws-bpel issues list editor
<peter.furniss@irisfinancialsolutions.com>
24.01.2007 13:02
|
|
The issues list is posted as a Technical Committee document
to the OASIS
WSBPEL TC pages on a regular basis. The current
edition, as a TC document, is the most recent version of the document entitled
in the "Issues" folder of the WSBPEL
TC document list - the next posting as a TC
document will include this issue. The list editor's working copy, which
will normally include an issue when it is announced, is available at this
constant URL.
Issue - R45 - BPEL partner link assignments (revisit
issue R13)
Status: received
Date added: 23 Jan 2007
Origin: Public comment Andi
Abes, 15 Jan 2007 (public comment list)
Date submitted: 15 Jan 2007
Submitter: Andi
Abes
Document: WS-BPEL 2.0 second public review text
Description: This is an attempt to crystallize the one of the many
issues raised in the first public review, originally referenced in issue
R13 : BPEL partner link assignments
Consider the same use case as in the original email exchange:
1. Receive PartnerLinkA, Operation1, messageExchange=First
2. Receive PartnerLinkA, Operation1, messageExchange=Second
... some work (a) ...
3. Reply PartnerLinkA, Operation1, messageExchange=First
4. Reply PartnerLinkA, Operation1, messageExchange=Second
... some work (b) ...
In the original issue, there was an implied assumption that any reference to the partner link EPR relies on some engine capability - and mandates some transport specific behavior.
While this is true, there should be a portable way of representing a simple behavior such as logging the source of the request - in a generic way (using an serf for example) - without any reliance on a particular transport or its capability. For example, the service ref might encode the TCP connection information (the 5 tuple) or the WSA address or any other identity the engine supports.
There are 2 areas not defined by the spec which would make
this use case, and other's like it, non-portable:
1. The
spec allows assignments from a partner link, so "some work (a)"
could be an assign from PartnerLinkA. But considering that messageExchange
First and messageExchange Second might have been invoked by different entities
(i.e. different synchronous TCP connections), the assign activity does
not provide enough information (e.g. message exchange) to allow for portable
operation. Each engine implementation is free to have its own interpretation
- or even to reject this since there's no definite way to disambiguate
the 2 originating entities.
2. The
spec does require the engine to keep track of each open IMA, with enough
information to deliver a reply to the appropriate request. A bpel process
can assign from an initialized partner link. Considering an assign performed
after a reply has been sent ("some work b") - is the partner
link still considered initialized? The spec does not address this issue.
The 2 points above suggest that for portability of BPEL
processes, message exchange attribute should be included on the partner
link form of Assign. The same considerations apply to Invoke activities.
Submitter's proposal:
The requested changes are:
To comment on this issue (including whether it should be accepted), please follow-up to this announcement on the wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org list (replying to this message should automatically send your message to that list), or ensure the subject line as you send it starts "Issue - R45 - [anything]" or is a reply to such a message. If you want to formally propose a resolution to an open issue, please start the subject line "Issue - R45 - Proposed resolution", without any Re: or similar.
To add a new issue, see the issues procedures document
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]