[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [bpel4people] Action Item 10 - comments on WS-HT section 7/8
Hi Alex, thanks for looking into this -- please see a couple of comments
inlined below (<dk>), explaining how we got here -- as always, suggestions
for improvements are welcome -- this should become a new issue, giving the
whole TC a place to contribute to a proposal.
Kind Regards
Dieter König
Senior Technical Staff Member, WebSphere Process Server Architect
IBM Software Group, Application and Integration Middleware Software
WSS Business Process Solutions
Phone: +49-7031-16-3426 IBM Deutschland (Embedded
image moved
to file:
pic23926.gif)
E-Mail: dieterkoenig@de.ibm.com Schönaicher Str. 220
71032 Böblingen
Germany
IBM Deutschland
Research &
Development
GmbH /
Vorsitzender des
Aufsichtsrats:
Martin Jetter
Geschäftsführung:
Erich Baier
Sitz der
Gesellschaft:
Böblingen /
Registergericht:
Amtsgericht
Stuttgart, HRB
243294
|------------>
| From: |
|------------>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|Alex Malek <alexma@exchange.microsoft.com> |
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------>
| To: |
|------------>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|"bpel4people@lists.oasis-open.org" <bpel4people@lists.oasis-open.org> |
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------>
| Date: |
|------------>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|27.11.2008 01:51 |
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------>
| Subject: |
|------------>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|[bpel4people] Action Item 10 - comments on WS-HT section 7/8 |
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
At the last F2F, I mentioned that I found section 7 of the WS-HT spec hard
to understand. I spent a bit of time since then trying to crystallize that
feeling into actual constructive feedback. I came up with five high-level
comments for sections 7 and 8:
1. It seems hard to understand section 7 without a deep understanding of
WS-Coordination. Do we assume that readers of the spec have to fully
understand WS-Coordination before reading WS-HT?
<dk>Yes -- well, at least implementers must understand it :-) --
WS-Coordination is a normative reference, see [WS-C]
http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-tx/wstx-wscoor-1.1-spec/wstx-wscoor-1.1-spec.html
</dk>
2. Where is the spec for the requestMessage and responseMessage of the
coordination prototcol? Are the details supposed to be vendor
specific?
<dk>The WS-HT-specific messages are defined in
"ws-humantask-protocol.wsdl" (the current version is attached below,
in the Editing team's SVN repository, it is in folder "Specification
\BPEL4People\Specifications\xml"). The rest is defined by
WS-Coordination itself (Register, RegisterResponse, etc.) -- see the
link above.</dk>
3. At the top of section seven, it mentions “A simplified protocol
applies to notifications”, but I don’t see where that is fleshed out.
<dk>Indeed, well hidden :-) -- the coordination protocol for
notifications is a small subset -- actually, there are three places
that talk about specific restrictions for notifications: the last
paragraph of section 7 (right before 7.1), section 7.4, and the last
paragraph of section 7.5.</dk>
4. Sections 7 and 8 don’t use the conformance targets, which makes them
hard to read, e.g. using the term “Caller” instead of “Task Parent”
<dk>This will change soon -- a resolution proposal for issue BP-16 is
currently being prepared by the Editing team -- this issue is about
applying normative RFC 2119 language to the whole spec.</dk>
5. I like the diagram at the top of the section that outlines the
messaging lifecycle. It would be nice if the text in that section
walked through the same lifecycle.
<dk>IMO, the text under "Scenario 1" does this - you see references to
the steps (1) to (4a)/(4b) there.</dk>
Thanks,,
Alex Malek
Microsoft Corp.
(See attached file: ws-humantask-protocol.wsdl)
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
