OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

sca-bpel message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: RE: [sca-bpel] Issue 2 - Does the spec allow a componentType side file?


[MR: inline]



-----Original Message-----
From: Anish Karmarkar [mailto:Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com]
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 3:48 PM
To: Michael Rowley
Subject: Re: [sca-bpel] Issue 2 - Does the spec allow a componentType side file?


Michael Rowley wrote:

> One thing a side file might be used for is to override the default

> algorithm that decides on which partnerlinks are services and which are

> references.  Do you agree?


Yes I do agree. That is why I raised the issue.

If the side file is present then the default does not apply.


[MR: Unfortunately, the assembly spec says that “Component type information found in the component type file must be compatible with the equivalent information found from inspection of the implementation.”  If we “override the default”, then we are not compatible with the information found from inspection :-(.]


>  If so, I think the side file would have to

> have a way of pointing from a service or reference declaration to a

> partnerlink.


To do so would require extending the <componentType> defined by

assembly. We have already done that in section 2 by introducing

<implementation.bpel process="xs:QName" .../>.


[MR: I think this may have been a mistake in a recent editing pass.  In the 1.0 version of these documents, it showed a <component> element, not a <componentType> element.]


----- sidebar -----

BTW, a separate issue: why is that needed? The other C&Is do not do

this. Furthermore, the assembly spec says:

"A component type file has the same name as the implementation file but

has the extension “.componentType”. The component type is defined by a

componentType element in the file. The location of the component type

file depends on the type of the component implementation: it is

described in the respective client and implementation model

specification for the implementation type."

So what we need is is not an <implementation.bpel> element in the

componentType file, but the location of the componentType file (or raise

an issue against the assembly spec).

----- side bar -----


So your suggestion would be to extend /componentType/service and

/componentType/reference elements to include the partnerlink. Right?


[MR: A reference to a partnerlink, yes.]


A subissue (or perhaps a different issue) related to this is: we would

need additional SCA BPEL extensions in section 3 to mark services and

references (in addition to properties and multirefs). This would allow

one to specify equivalent information in a side file or in the BPEL

process itself (similar to what Java has done). I.e., side file would be

optional as far as provided functionality goes.


[MR: I agree]


Yet another subissue is: if my BPEL process is SCA aware, for example it

has sca:property or sca:multiReference in it (and potentially

sca:service, sca:reference elements if we add it -- see subissue above),

do the default rules still apply?


[MR: I don’t understand.  The default rules would be for the partnerlinks that are not so marked.]










> Michael


> -----Original Message-----

> From: Anish Karmarkar [mailto:Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com]

> Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 1:58 AM


> Subject: Re: [sca-bpel] Issue 2 - Does the spec allow a componentType

> side file?


> Proposed resolution:


> In section 2, line 194 add --

> It is also possible to have a component type file that is associated

> with the BPEL component implementation. When such a component type file

> is present, as specified in [SCA-Assembly], it provides component type

> information in addition to what is found by introspection.



> Do we need to define compatibility between what is found by

> introspection and what is available in the side file?


> Comments?


> -Anish

> --


> Alex Yiu wrote:

>> Issue entered:

>> http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BPEL-2




>> Anish Karmarkar wrote:

>>> Title: Does the spec allow a componentType side file


>>> Target: BPEL C&I spec


>>> Description: The spec does not say whether a componentType side file

>>> is allowed. If it is allowed then it should override the default

> rules

>>> specified in the spec.


>>> Proposal:

>>> <none>


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]