Re: [sca-bpel] Issue 41: proposal with examples

[Danny van der Rijn <dannyv@tibco.com>]

Title: [sca-bpel] Issue 41: proposal with examples

Strangely, I like this :-)  Thanks for taking the time, Anish, to flesh this out in spec language.  I like the addition of

"

o         [SBPEL2YYY] If the sca-bpel:service or sca-bpel:reference attribute is present on the partnerLink, its value MUST NOT be a member of S. The value of the attribute is added to S and appropriate SCA service or reference is generated per section 2.1.1.

"

IMO it would be worth changing the example slightly to include a use of SBPEL2YYY:

<process …>

  <partnerLinks>

    <partnerLink name="shipping" "_shipping_1" sca-bpel:service="shipping" ... />

    <partnerLink name="_shipping_2" ... />

    <partnerLink name="receiving" ... />

    <partnerLink name="_receiving_2" ... />

  </partnerLinks>

 

  ...

 

  <scope>

    <partnerLinks>

      <partnerLink name="shipping" ... />

      <partnerLink name="receiving" ... />

      <partnerLink name="_shipping_1" ... />

      <partnerLink name="_receiving_1" ... />

    </partnerLinks>

 

    ...

 

  </scope>

 

  ...

 

</process>

with the resulting tables remaining the same.



However, the addition of SBPEL2YYY does bring up another edge case.  I think I'm OK with not closing the loophole and just leaving this sharp corner there for the few people in the world who will run up against it, to mix my metaphors.  But I feel the need to point it out, anyway.

Consider a modification on the first example:

<process …>

  <partnerLinks>

    <partnerLink name="shipping" ... />

    <partnerLink name="_shipping_2" ... />

    <partnerLink name="receiving" ... />

    <partnerLink name="_receiving_2" ... />

  </partnerLinks>

 

  ...

 

  <scope>

    <partnerLinks>

      <partnerLink name="shipping"  sca-bpel:service="shipping" ... />

      <partnerLink name="receiving" ... />

      <partnerLink name="_shipping_1" ... />

      <partnerLink name="_receiving_1" ... />

    </partnerLinks>

 

    ...

 

  </scope>

 

  ...

 </process>

This would be an invalid document under SBPEL2YYY since "shipping" will already have been assigned by the algorithm.


Anish Karmarkar wrote:

4A7A3D26.3070103@oracle.com" type="cite">

Attached.

This is based on the proposal that was sent by Danny (which updated the
proposal sent by MichaelR). I have added examples (that were also sent
by Danny in a different email).

Comments?

-Anish
--

S/MIME Cryptographic Signature