[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wsbpel-spec-edit] Friendly amendments to issue 89 proposal
Kevin, As I said earlier, we should not add The value of the querLanguage attribute and the value of the expressionLanguage attribute at the process level can be overridden by an activity using a different value for that attribute. Because I believe that amounts to changing the spec. Did I miss some change we have made already? Satish -----Original Message----- From: Liu, Kevin [mailto:kevin.liu@sap.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 1:19 PM To: Satish Thatte; Alex Yiu Cc: ygoland@bea.com; bpel spec Subject: RE: [wsbpel-spec-edit] Friendly amendments to issue 89 proposal Satish, I am ok with the text you come up with for 89. To put it into the context of section 6.2, the final change should be: (proposed changes marked with [[...]]) The top-level attributes are as follows: * queryLanguage. This attribute specifies the default XML query language used for selection of nodes in assignment, property definition, and other uses. The default value for this attribute is XPath 1.0, represented by the URI of the XPath 1.0 specification: http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-xpath-19991116. * expressionLanguage. This attribute specifies the expression language used in the process. The default for this attribute is XPath 1.0, represented by the URI of the XPath 1.0 specification: http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-xpath-19991116. * ... [[ The value of the querLanguage attribute and the value of the expressionLanguage attribute at the process level can be overridden by an activity using a different value for that attribute. Any platform component that is required to interpret a BPEL process definition MUST statically ensure that it supports all the queryLanguage and expressionLanguage attribute values used in the process definition. If it does not support one or more such values it MUST reject the process definition. ]] ... If Yaron and others agree with the text and location, I can incorporate the text to the spec. That takes care of issue 89. I also want to add a big +1 to Alex's suggestion for defining the different processors. Throughout the spec, we are talking about quite a few different things. Here we are actually defining a conformant behavior of a "platform component", whereas in section 6.4, we are talking about some "processor". The terms "runtime engine", "engine", "process engine" are also used in different places. As Alex already pointed out issue 9 also needs a better definition of the terms. It would be good if we can clarify what are the conformance targets of the spec and define such targets clearly. At the minimum, the terms need to be reconciled. This might be addressed as part of issue 9, or should a new issue be opened? Best Regards, Kevin -----Original Message----- From: Satish Thatte [mailto:satisht@microsoft.com] Sent: Monday, Oct 25, 2004 09:26 PM To: Alex Yiu; Liu, Kevin Cc: ygoland@bea.com; bpel spec Subject: RE: [wsbpel-spec-edit] Friendly amendments to issue 89 proposal I had the same concern as Alex re static analysis. In the spec at present we seem to allow "targeted override" (at query/expression usage points) rather than "global override" (at the activity level) of the {query,expression}Language default. We should not change that as an editorial correction. So I take that concern back. So then I would say that Any platform component that is required to interpret a BPEL process definition MUST statically ensure that it supports all the queryLanguage and expressionLanguage attribute values used in the process definition. If it does not support one or more such values it MUST reject the process definition. Where exactly should this go? Good question. Satish -----Original Message----- From: Alex Yiu [mailto:alex.yiu@oracle.com] Sent: Monday, October 25, 2004 5:52 PM To: Liu, Kevin Cc: 'ygoland@bea.com'; bpel spec; Satish Thatte; Alex Yiu Subject: Re: [wsbpel-spec-edit] Friendly amendments to issue 89 proposal Hi Kevin, Thanks for the update. The wordings of "the processor MUST stop processing the process" seems to imply that the BPEL implementation will behave like an interpreter, when the implementation is an executation engine. It looks like that the processor stops processing only after it discovers the expression/query language support problem. Does it imply that a BPEL execution engine implementation should not do static analysis? Or, I am just reading too much into the intention of the sentence? One way or the other, I think it would be better to put addtional sentences to explicitly state that whether static analysis may/must be performed to detect this error condition. And, if an execution engine implementation is ever allowed to discover this problem on the fly in the middle of the process execution, then a runtime fault may be needed. Instead of have one vague statements that covers all kinds of BPEL processors. We may want to have some terms introduced: e.g. BPEL execution processor and BPEL analysis processor (which do static analysis and other analysis without executing the BPEL process). Then, our description against different kinds of processors can be more precise. I think these 2 terms are needed also, when we want to give a context for Issue 9. Thanks! Regards, Alex Yiu Liu, Kevin wrote: >Hi Yaron and all, > >There was a brief discussion on 89 in the editors' call last week. Since Yaron had already been swamped with many issues, the group felt obligated to take some burden from his shoulder, and somehow I ended up with an AI to come up with new text to address some concerns Satish brought up. > >Here is the strawman proposal I would like to you to bring up for your consideration. Though the changes might appear violent (at least more than I was thinking), I believe the principal idea is the same as the initial proposal. > >To be honest, I don't have a strong feeling on this issue and am totally open for any suggestions. Please just send me (or to the editor's group directly) your wording if you have a preference. > > >The issue: >=============== >Handling Unrecognized Query/Expression Languages - What is a BPEL engine to do if the query/expression language identifier given in queryLanguage/expressionLanguage attributes are unrecognized? > >Initial Proposal: >================ >From: "Yaron Y. Goland" <ygoland@bea.com> >To: wsbpeltc <wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org> >Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 18:16:31 -0700 > >Add the following language to the end of section 14.1: > >If the value of a queryLanguage or expressionLanguage attribute in a >BPEL executable process identifies a language that the execution engine >does not support then the execution engine MUST NOT execute the BPEL >process. > >Concerns from Satish: >==================== >1. The wording sounds like that it only applicable to "execution engine". Actually the logic should be applicable to any thing that deals with a BPEL process > >2. Need to clarify that this is not only concerned with the two attributes in the root element, but to all levels > >My strawman amendments: >============================== >The issue called out "BPEL engine", but if I understand Satish's concern correctly, he thinks the proposal should work for all BPEL processors and to all levels of BPEL elements. How about the following? > >1. The location >The proposal is to change section 14.1. In the latest draft, section 14.1 only deals with executable extensions for expressions. >http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel/download.php/9094/w sbpel-specification-draft-Sept-08-2004.html#s.Extensions.top > >Since the issue address both query language and expression language, and is general for both abstract and executable processes, I feel section 6.2 is a better place to address this general issue. > >2. The text > >Change the following section in 6.2 to add a paragraph (proposed changes marked with [[...]]) > >The top-level attributes are as follows: > >* queryLanguage. This attribute specifies the default XML query language used for selection of nodes in assignment, property definition, and other uses. The default value for this attribute is XPath 1.0, represented by the URI of the XPath 1.0 specification: http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-xpath-19991116. > >* expressionLanguage. This attribute specifies the expression language used in the process. The default for this attribute is XPath 1.0, represented by the URI of the XPath 1.0 specification: http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-xpath-19991116. > >* suppressJoinFailure. This attribute determines whether the joinFailure fault will be suppressed for all activities in the process. The effect of the attribute at the process level can be overridden by an activity using a different value for the attribute. The default for this attribute is "no" at the process level. When this attribute is not specified for an activity, it inherits its value from its closest enclosing activity or from the process if no enclosing activity specifies this attribute. > >* abstractProcess. This attribute specifies whether the process being defined is abstract (rather than executable). The default for this attribute is "no". > >[[ >The value of the querLanguage attribute and the value of the expressionLanguage attribute at the process level can be overridden by an activity using a different value for that attribute. If the specified query or expression language is not supported by a processor which has to deal with the relevant query or expression, the processor MUST stop processing the process. >]] > >... > ></new> > >Please note the term "processor" is already used in section 6.4, so I am not inventing a new term for this issue, though a separate issue might be opened for defining what a "processor" is. > >Thoughts? > >Best Regards, >Kevin > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]