[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [sca-bpel] Issue 49: BPEL process QName is assumed to be unique
I'm inclined to not treat BPEL different from any other XML definition. Perhaps my proposed new sentence should be changed to remove the requirement that resolution results in a single process. So, it would be:
"SCA's artifact resolution mechanism, defined in section 11.2 of the SCA Assembly Specification, MUST be used to resolve the specified QName to a WS-BPEL process."
Then, whatever the assembly specification requires or allows with respect to uniqueness and/or implementation dependent mechanisms, we also use.
Michael
-----Original Message-----
From: Dieter Koenig1 [mailto:dieterkoenig@de.ibm.com]
Sent: Friday, July 17, 2009 4:06 AM
To: Mike Edwards
Cc: OASIS BPEL
Subject: RE: [sca-bpel] Issue 49: BPEL process QName is assumed to be unique
Mike, is there a reason why we don't treat all qualified names (for WSDL, XSD, BPEL, and other XML entities) in the same way, using the rules that you quoted from the SCA-Assembly spec -- in other words, what would be specific for BPEL processes?
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:
pic31024.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: Mike Edwards <mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com>
To: OASIS BPEL <sca-bpel@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date: 17.07.2009 09:48
Subject: RE: [sca-bpel] Issue 49: BPEL process QName is assumed to be unique
Folks,
This is a step forward, but it leaves open some interesting questions.
As worded, the contributions in the SCA Domain could contain multiple BPEL process artifacts which have the same QName.
Following the SCA artifact resolution process, more than one of those BPEL process artifacts could be within the resolution space defined by the SCA artifact resolution mechanism.
The SCA Assembly specification says the following in relation to multiple artifacts with the same QName existing in the artifact search space::
"If multiple dependent contributions have exported definitions with conflicting qualified names, the algorithm used to determine the qualified name to use is implementation dependent.
Implementations of SCA MAY also raise an error if there are conflicting names exported from multiple contributions. [ASM12007]"
So, Assembly allows for the case but also indicates that it can be treated as an error. The downside of allowing multiple artifacts with the same QName is that the artifact used is runtime dependent and as a result, the application behaviour is indeterminate.
I would be in favour of outlawing multiple BPEL processes with the same QName from existing in the search space for SCA artifact resolution. Note that this does not mean that multiple BPEL processes with the same QName can't exist in the Domain - only that they cannot be exported from their contributions in such a way that makes more than one of them available for use by some importing contribution.
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: 16/07/2009 19:05
Subjec RE: [sca-bpel] Issue 49: BPEL process QName is assumed to be
t: unique
PROPOSAL:
Section 1.0 currently includes the following sentence: "[SBPEL1001] The process attribute of the <implementation.bpel> element MUST be the QName of an executable WS-BPEL process."
The following sentence should be added immediately after the sentence quoted above:
"SCA's artifact resolution mechanism, defined in section 11.2 of the SCA Assembly Specification, MUST resolve the specified QName to a single WS-BPEL process."
Michael
-----Original Message-----
From: Anish Karmarkar [mailto:Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com.]
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 6:59 PM
To: OASIS BPEL
Subject: [sca-bpel] Issue 49: BPEL process QName is assumed to be unique
This is a new issue based on a PR comment, per my AI.
http://osoa.org/jira/browse/BPEL-49
PR 01 comment filed at:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bpel-comment/200906/msg00002.html
The BPEL specification does not say that the BPEL process QName is unique. The SCA BPEL C&I spec assumes that it is, but does not state this assumption in the spec.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]