[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [wsbpel-implement] The uploaded loan approval example
Hi Ron, Ugo, Kris, Yes, I agree with you. I was referring to the examples not using it and that the spec wording should change to support it because as it stands now it doesn't :) -Rania Ron Ten-Hove wrote: > Rania, > > In XPath 1.0 a function name is an (XML) qualified name (see here > <http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath#NT-FunctionName>.) Thus the prefix must be > bound to a namespace URI. I think we are all in agreement here. > > Should I open an issue, so that we can start the machinery up to > add a "prefixes" section at the beginning of the spec? > > -Ron > > rkhalaf wrote: > >> Hi Ugo, Kris, Ron, >> >> My impression is also that is the prefix in the xpath funcs is fixed >> to the actual "bpws" string. >> >> The spec says that's associated to the namespace but not that it >> must be defined >> "The extensions are defined in the standard BPEL4WS namespace >> "http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2003/03/business-process/";. The prefix >> "bpws:" is associated with this namespace." >> >> Also, the examples in the spec do NOT define that prefix in the BPEL >> samples, although they do define it in the associated WSDL files when >> defining propertyAliases etc. >> >> It is not used in the schema to refer to the xpath functions or fault >> names, but it is used there to qualify the BPEL elements (partner, >> invoke, etc ) .. >> >> We should ask spec team for clarification on this since if it does >> need to be defined then the spec wording should change. I wonder why >> they didn't tie it to that to start with. >> >> Rania >> >> >> >> Ron Ten-Hove wrote: >> >>> Ugo Corda wrote: >>> >>>> Yes, bpws should be defined as: >>>> >>>> xmlns:bpws="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2003/03/business-process/"; >>>> (see Appendix D - XSD Schemas). >>>> >>>> Examples in the spec also define it that way (see for example 16.1.2). >>>> >>>> I think the spec uses "bpws" in many places as a shortcut for >>>> referring >>>> to the namespace URI, without mentioning the fact that the "bpws" >>>> prefix >>>> is arbitrary. >>>> >>>> >>> Yes, such practice has become commonplace in XML-based specs that >>> use more than one such namespace. Such specs usually contain a list >>> of all the prefixes and namespaces used in XML fragments thoughout >>> the spec, to avoid confusion, or overly length XML fragments. >>> >>> Should we suggest to our editing team that they should include such >>> a list at the beginning of the WS-BPEL spec? >>> >>> -Ron >>> >>>> Ugo >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Kristofer Agren [mailto:kagren@pakalert.com] Sent: Monday, >>>>> March 15, 2004 3:35 PM >>>>> To: 'bpel implementation' >>>>> Cc: Ugo Corda >>>>> Subject: RE: [wsbpel-implement] The uploaded loan approval example >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Another question about the validity of the loan approval BPEL; the >>>>> loan approval example makes a number of called to >>>>> bpws:getVariableData, but the prefix "bpws" is not mapped to any >>>>> namespace. >>>>> I have not found a definite answer to this in the specification, >>>>> where it is simply stated that the prefix is "bpws" is associated >>>>> with the BPEL namespace (section 9.1), but it is not mentioned >>>>> whether this is an assumption that applies to all BPEL files >>>>> (without having to do an >>>>> xmlns:bpws="...") or just to the examples in the specification. I >>>>> would like to think that any namespace prefix should be properly >>>>> defined before used, even those that are used to refer to >>>>> extension functions? >>>>> >>>>> Kristofer >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Ugo Corda [mailto:UCorda@SeeBeyond.com] Sent: Monday, March >>>>> 15, 2004 4:33 PM >>>>> To: Kristofer Agren; bpel implementation >>>>> Subject: RE: [wsbpel-implement] The uploaded loan approval example >>>>> >>>>> I agree. The Partner Link Type Schema specifies >>>>> elementFormDeafult="qualified", so all the local names must be >>>>> qualified. The syntax specified in BPEL sec. 7.1 is also quite clear. >>>>> >>>>> Ugo >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Kristofer Agren [mailto:kagren@pakalert.com] >>>>>> Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 12:50 PM >>>>>> To: 'bpel implementation' >>>>>> Subject: [wsbpel-implement] The uploaded loan approval example >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> There appears to be an error in the loanapproval.wsdl and >>>>>> loanapprovalBound.wsdl files; the <portType> element under >>>>>> <plnk:role> is not in the partner link namespace: >>>>>> >>>>>> <plnk:role name="assessor"> >>>>>> <portType name="asns:riskAssessmentPT"/> >>>>>> </plnk:role> >>>>>> Maybe I am missing something, but it should it not be: >>>>>> >>>>>> <plnk:role name="assessor"> >>>>>> <plnk:portType name="asns:riskAssessmentPT"/> >>>>>> </plnk:role> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> >>>>>> Kristofer >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]