Re: [sca-bpel] Component Types in SCA

[Mike Edwards <mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com>]

Najeeb,

I sympathise - it does get confusing.

I tried before now to get the name of
"component type" changed to "implementation info".
 Names mean a lot, since
they give people impressions of what
they mean.

The real meaning of "component
type" is really that it is a description of the actual configurable
aspects of an
implementation (that is why "implementation
info" would be more appropriate).

The component in a composite is a configuration
of some implementation - strictly, the component does not have
a "type" - it is configuring
a type.  Further to confuse things, it is not necessary for a component
to configure all of
the configurable aspects of an implementation
(eg the implementation may have a configurable property, but if 
the property has a default value, then
a using component can leave this untouched).

For the composite to FORCE the component
type of the implementation, the concept of "constraining type"
was
introduced, to help in the case of top-down
design where there is a desire for the composite to dictate the "shape"
of the implementation that it will (later)
use. This is the equivalent of the "component defining the type of
the
component" - but in reality it
is defining the type of the implementation (or at least its SCA-configurable
form)

I hope this helps dispel some of the
darkness.

Yours,  Mike.

Strategist - Emerging Technologies, SCA & SDO.
Co Chair OASIS SCA Assembly TC.
IBM Hursley Park, Mail Point 146, Winchester, SO21 2JN, Great Britain.
Phone & FAX: +44-1962-818014    Mobile: +44-7802-467431  
Email:  mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com

"Najeeb Andrabi" <nandrabi@tibco.com>

12/02/2008 20:11

To	<sca-bpel@lists.oasis-open.org>
cc
Subject	[sca-bpel] Component Types in SCA

       I would like to
make a comment about Component Types in SCA. This is in context with defining
a component type file for BPEL implementations. I am curious about the
fact that a component cannot refer a component type: it has to infer what
its type might be using implementation.* element. I don’t understand the
rationale behind this approach. Component type defines the type of component
so why it cannot refer it. Approach of referring ones type is used everywhere
in specifications like XML schema, WSDL, BPEL etc. e.g. a schema element
can have a reference to complex type that defines the type of the element.
 
      My comment may be because
of lack of understanding of SCA assembly specification. But, from my understanding
of the specification I think we should allow components to refer their
type.
 
--Najeeb

---

Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU