OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

wsbpel-implement message

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

Subject: RE: [wsbpel-implement] Portability and Interoperability Testing

John, et al--

There are of course a number of things that could be exercised from the
spec, but data handling and correlation management (mainly the data aspect
of correlation) comes to mind as something that may differ in
implementations and could affect portability.

Regarding data handling and manipulation, this could involve all the various
ways XML data can be referenced, manipulated and created in BPEL. This
should include a lot of variations of XPath queries and the use of the XPath
extension functions, as well as building XML data through assign/copy.

Regarding correlation, use cases could be created that have comprehensive
flows of all the different uses of correlation, incoming, outgoing, etc.
Again, there could be some data handling issues, mainly in how correlation
sets are compared. For example, consider the following, which is actually
something that I have not been able to find an answer to in the
specification (please let me know if I have missed something):

	<bpws:property name="someID" type="xsd:int"/>
	<bpws:propertyAlias propertyName="tns:someID" 
		messageType="tns:messageType1" part="part"
	<bpws:propertyAlias propertyName="tns:someID" 
		messageType="tns:messageType2" part="part"

The property "someID" is of type xsd:int. Consider the two message types
that alias the property, messageType1 and messageType2, and assume that the
value during the correlation extracted from messgeType1 is '1234' and the
value extracted from messageType2 is '0001234'. Since the type of the
property is an 'int' the correlation should be successful as they are
logically equal. This is the sort of thing that I could assume that
different vendors have implemented differently, i.e. doing literal
comparisons rather than type-sensitive comparisons.



-----Original Message-----
From: John Evdemon [mailto:jevdemon@microsoft.com] 
Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2004 1:43 AM
To: Kristofer Agren; Ron Ten-Hove; bpel implementation
Subject: RE: [wsbpel-implement] Portability and Interoperability Testing

On Friday, February 13, 2004 11:02 AM, Kristofer Agren wrote:
> 1.1. Defining a set of BPEL processes/use cases that will
> collectively cover the functionality of the entire BPEL 
> specification. These test cases should be delivered in
> conjunction with new the release of new BPEL
> specifications.

Kristofer, Ron, et al:

We had a Use Case call this week.  I told the group we would be
narrowing our scope and focusing on the issues list and exercising the
spec.  I would love to get your input on which aspects of the spec you
feel would be of the most value.

Thanks in advance for your time and assistance.



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