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 18 proposal and next week's call


This is very close to the thinking I expressed in my previous notes on this issue.


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

Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>

31/07/2008 01:41

Martin Chapman <martin.chapman@oracle.com>
Re: [sca-bpel] Issue 18 proposal and next week's call

The fact that a component type as an artifact does not exist for
introspected implementations makes things a little difficult wrt
conformance statements.

MikeR in his previous proposal had 'generator' as a conformance target.
The TC did not like that idea. So we are stuck with using the targets
specified in the resolution of issue 15.

I noticed that all the requirement wrt component type are 'MUST's. I'm
wondering if the way to resolve this is to not use RFC 2119 keywords in
the bpel spec when we talk about component types, but just state them as
facts/assertions. The BPEL spec then would list the rules (sans 2119
keywords) for the component type and the actual assertions would be in
the assembly spec. For example we could say in the bpel spec:

"If a partnerLink specifies an sca-bpel:reference attribute, then the
component type contains a SCA reference that corresponds to that
partnerLink. The name of the reference is the value of the attribute."

The assembly spec would have assertions for SCA runtimes and SCDL
documents along the lines of:
The component configuration in a SCDL DOCUMENT MUST be compatible with
the component type associated with the component's implementation.

(ignore the specifics of the assembly spec wording, we don't have to
decide on that here. That is assembly TC's problem ;-) What is more
important is the concept of having assertions in assembly spec and rules
in bpel spec.)

So if there is a SCDL document that has a component with
<implemenation.bpel ...> in it and the SCDL configures a reference for
the component which does not exist in the component type associated with
the BPEL process, a test tool can point to the SCDL and definitively say
that the SCDL is non-conformant.



Martin Chapman wrote:
> For sake of convenience I have attached a pdf version of Mike R's proposal with added line numbers.
> Since the call last week I took a step back to try to understand what we are trying to define,
> which would help me elucidate my concerns about the proposed text. Words like Runtime and
> generation in the same rule make me very nervous. Initially I was trying to find an alternative to
> the word generate that might more accurately reflect what a runtime has to do, but finding a
> substitute is not easy.
> To me the problem starts at the beginning of section 2 (lines 180 thru 197). This  text introduces
> the concept of a component type and ends on line 197 by saying "The Component Type MAY be generated
> from a WS-BPEL process definition by introspection." Also line 217 has a similar sentence on
> generating a component type
> However nowhere does it state when the component type should be generated, and Assembly doesn't say
> much on this subject.
> I have always assumed that in order to assemble and configure, one needs to know the component type
> at design time prior to any runtime involvement. In this case, one must know the services and
> references of a BPEL implementation in order to do design time wiring. Whether generated or not,
> the rules of section 2.1 should be obeyed e.g. it would be invalid to define a component type with
> a reference, if the related BPEL activity is a receive. Furthermore, one is also allowed to define
> a component with a BPEL implementation without the need for a component type, and in this case as
> well the rules of 2.1 should be obeyed IMHO.
> Without a common understanding of the use cases we are supporting, and an understanding of where in
> the lifecycle artifacts are needed, finding  the right words in section 2.1 is going to be tough.
> What I think we need to do is define the relationship rules between BPEL and Assembly, regardless
> of whether it's a component or a component type, and then decide at what point in the lifecycle the
> definitions must be available, whether they can be generated or not, and whether we have to mandate
> what generates them.
> I propose we start the discussion on Thursday by reviewing the use cases we are supporting and any
> assumptions we have, before diving into the wording details.
> Cheers,
>   Martin.
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Anish Karmarkar [mailto:Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com]
>> Sent: 25 July 2008 23:00
>> Subject: [sca-bpel] Issue 18 proposal and next week's call
>> As promised on this week's I'm sending this email.
>> Issue 18 proposal from Michael is located at:
>> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bpel/200806/doc00001.doc and
>> was sent in the email at
>> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bpel/200806/msg00002.html
>> This is the proposal that is called revision 5, but should be really
>> called sca-bpel-1.1-spec-cd01-18proposal.doc (or something like that).
>> Homework: please read this proposal and send
>> feedback/opinions/changes/alternate proposals by email before next
>> week's call.
>> We only have one issue to discuss next week and that is issue
>> 18. This
>> issue along with Michael's proposal (and other proposals, if
>> any) will
>> be included in the agenda for next week.
>> After next week's call we'll go into aestivation for all of
>> august. It
>> would be nice if we could resolve issue 18 as it applies to
>> section 2.1.
>> If we resolve it for 2.1, we can then assign an AI to the editors to
>> take that forward to the other sections.
>> Thanks.
>> -Anish
>> --
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS
>> TC that generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your
>> TCs in OASIS at:
>> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgr
>> oups.php
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
>> generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
>> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php

To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:

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

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