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] [NEW ISSUE] Need to add Capability to indicate thata PartnerLink should be ignored when introspecting the ComponentType of aBPEL Process

Title: Re: [sca-bpel] [NEW ISSUE] Need to add Capability to indicate that a PartnerLink should be ignored when introspecting the ComponentType of a BPEL Process
Dieter -

It's a statement that not all pL's that are used in a BPEL process should be wired.  Whether this translates to all of Mike's verbiage, or not, for me, the salient part is:

"where it is a reference and the reference target/EPR is assigned to it ..."

In my own words - If the pL is never used as a service, and the reference (EPR) is always assigned into it (from another pL, from a vbl, from ...) then any external wiring that would be applied will ALWAYS be ignored.  We wouldn't want the burden of determining this case to fall to introspection, so we would, instead, introduce an attribute for the author to include, saying that this pL should not contribute to the componentType.

Now if it is used incorrectly, then perhaps you would get a runtime exception if you tried to use it (as either a service or a reference), and this could possibly get some static analysis help to point this out to you.  Such a case could argue against including such an attribute, or it could point to suggesting or requiring such static analysis.  IMO, the way to go is to include the attribute without anything additional.

Danny van der Rijn

Dieter Koenig1 wrote:
OF2985E76F.B7C25C75-ONC125762A.0059F254-C125762A.005A7D90@de.ibm.com" type="cite">

Hi Mike, why do you say "logically it represents the same partnerLink
reference as the partnerLink in the outer scope"?

>From a BPEL perspective, the two partner links are independent (besides the
fact that only one is visible at any point in the process definition).

IMO we introduced the "_" naming conventions precisely for this situation.
As a result, I do not think that "only one (reference) is called for".

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:
  E-Mail:           dieterkoenig@de.ibm.com    Schönaicher Str. 220                          
                                               71032 Böblingen                               
  IBM Deutschland                                                                            
  Research &                                                                                 
  GmbH /                                                                                     
  Vorsitzender des                                                                           
  Martin Jetter                                                                              
  Erich Baier                                                                                
  Sitz der                                                                                   
  Böblingen /                                                                                
  Stuttgart, HRB                                                                             

  From:       Mike Edwards <mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com>                                                                        
  To:         "OASIS BPEL" <sca-bpel@lists.oasis-open.org>                                                                  
  Date:       07.09.2009 14:42                                                                                              
  Subject:    [sca-bpel] [NEW ISSUE] Need to add Capability to indicate that a PartnerLink should be ignored when           
              introspecting the ComponentType of a BPEL Process                                                             

Raiser:                        Mike Edwards

Target:                        sca-bpel-1.1-spec-cd02.doc


Currently, any declaration of a partnerLink within a BPEL process results
in a <service/> or a <reference/> appearing in the componentType of the
BPEL process.

This is not desirable in all circumstances:

- it may be that a BPEL process is written with an inner loop, where the
inner loop is implemented as a nested <scope/>.  In this inner loop, it may

be that a partnerLink is declared within the nested scope and used purely
as a "local variable" within the loop, for example where it is a reference
and the reference target/EPR is assigned to it from the contents of a
variable held in an outer scope.

In these circumstances, the partnerLink in the inner loop is shadowing a
partnerLink in the outer scope - logically it represents the same
reference as the partnerLink in the outer scope.

At present, SCA cannot handle a situation such as this - the inner
partnerLink is introspected as a <reference/> and so is the outer
partnerLink - this
means 2 references appear when only one is called for.

To change this, it is necessary to provide a capability for the writer of a
BPEL process to indicate that a given partnerLink should NOT be used
to introspect a <service/> or a <reference/> in the componentType.


Add a new SCA BPEL extension attribute that can be used to annotate a
<partnerLink/> element.


boolean - default value is false

When @skip="true", the <partnerLink/> element is ignored when introspecting
the compoenntType of the BPEL Process.

The changes are shown in this marked up version of CD02, where the changes
are in Section 3.3 and Appendix A.

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

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

[attachment "sca-bpel-1.1-spec-cd02+skip_proposal.doc" deleted by Dieter
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:

S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

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