sca-bpel message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: RE: [Issue 38]: Is the 'MUST' in section 2.1.2 needed?
- From: Mike Edwards <mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com>
- To: OASIS BPEL <sca-bpel@lists.oasis-open.org>
- Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 11:40:38 +0100
Folks,
I am still left feeling that the whole
story is not being given from an SCA perspective here. Perhaps an
example is called for.
What I think I am missing is what demands
this set of requirements place on the guy assembling a component which
uses
a BPEL implementation with this characteristic.
I am having a hard time translating
"the partner link's partner role will be initialized as soon as the
partner link becomes active"
into something that is meaningful to
an assembler.
If it means something like "for
a service, there must be a fixed set for the endpoint of the callback"
and "for a reference, the reference
must be wired to a service", then
I think that we should say so. If these words are not the right ones,
I'd appreciate it if someone
who understands @initializePartnerRole
better could come up with a better set of words.
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
From:
| Michael Rowley <michael.rowley@activevos.com>
|
To:
| Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>,
OASIS BPEL <sca-bpel@lists.oasis-open.org>
|
Date:
| 23/04/2009 21:44
|
Subject:
| RE: [sca-bpel] [Issue 38]: Is the 'MUST'
in section 2.1.2 needed? |
I took an action to try rewriting this. Here is a version that separates
out the reference side from the servic side. It has a lot of redundancy
this way, so immidiately below it I have a second try that attempts to
combine the requirements for services and references.
-----
2.1.2 Handling @initializePartnerRole
If a partner link marked with initializePartnerRole="yes" maps
to a reference in the component type, then any component that uses this
business process as an implementation MUST configure the corresponding
reference using binding, promotion and wiring configuration that guarantees
that the partner link's partner role will be initialized as soon as the
partner link becomes active. The component type reference for a partner
link that is marked as initializePartnerRole="yes" MUST NOT specify
wiredByImpl="true".
SCA has no concept of multiplicity on services, but partner links that
map to services can still be marked with an initializePartnerRole attribute.
[SBPEL2014] If initializePartnerRole="yes" is specified
for a partner link and the partner link maps to a service in the component
type, then any component that uses this business process as an implementation
MUST configure the corresponding service using a callback binding, promotion
and wiring that guarantees that the partner link's partner role will be
initialized as soon as the partner link becomes active.
------
2.1.2 Handling @initializePartnerRole
If a partner link is marked with initializePartnerRole="yes"
then any component that uses this business process as an implementation
MUST configure the corresponding service or reference using binding, promotion
and wiring configuration that guarantees that the partner link's partner
role will be initialized as soon as the partner link becomes active. If
the partner link is mapped to a service, the callback binding would be
the relevant binding for this requirement. The the partner link is
mapped to a reference then the component type ype reference MUST NOT specify
wiredByImpl="true".
Michael
-----Original Message-----
From: Anish Karmarkar [mailto:Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2009 3:24 AM
To: OASIS BPEL
Subject: Re: [sca-bpel] [Issue 38]: Is the 'MUST' in section 2.1.2 needed?
This is now issue 38: http://osoa.org/jira/browse/BPEL-38
Anish Karmarkar wrote:
> Title: is the 'MUST' in section 2.1.2 needed?
>
> Target: SCA BPEL C&I
>
> Description:
> This issue came up as a result of discussion of test assertion SBL-TA-2012.
> The test assertion, which is based on SBPEL2014, is not really testable.
> OR to be more precises perhaps could be testable for some corner cases,
> which the SCA BPEL TC (very likely) is not going to test.
> The problem is that the requirement states that the binding configured
> must know the identity of the partner as soon as the PL becomes active.
> It is not clear how that would happen for the bindings that we define.
> It seems to assume that the binding and the port associated with the
> binding is visible only to other SCA references. It is not clear why/how
> this would be true.
> A related minor issue is that it talks about the 'identity' of the
> partner. Does it really mean 'identity' or the 'location'? The
> parenthetical statement seems to indicate that it is the location,
not
> identity.
>
> Proposal:
> Two possible solutions:
> 1) If this is indeed a corner case which we want to enable but not
test,
> we could s/MUST/SHOULD/
> 2) If this is a corner case that we don't intend to test nor do we
see
> it serve a useful purpose then we should just get rid of section 2.1.2
>
> -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_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:
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:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
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]