[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wsbpel-spec-edit] Proposed text for issue 170 (RESEND)
BY the way mail to Kartha is bouncing -- anyone know why? -----Original Message----- From: Francisco Curbera [mailto:curbera@us.ibm.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 3:44 PM To: Satish Thatte Cc: Liu, Kevin; Kartha, Neelakantan; bpel spec Subject: RE: [wsbpel-spec-edit] Proposed text for issue 170 (RESEND) I like the proposed text. Paco |---------+----------------------------> | | "Satish Thatte" | | | <satisht@microsof| | | t.com> | | | | | | 01/18/2005 03:45 | | | PM | |---------+----------------------------> >----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------| | | | To: Francisco Curbera/Watson/IBM@IBMUS | | cc: "Liu, Kevin" <kevin.liu@sap.com>, "Kartha, Neelakantan" <N_Kartha@stercomm.com>, "bpel spec" | | <wsbpel-spec-edit@lists.oasis-open.org> | | Subject: RE: [wsbpel-spec-edit] Proposed text for issue 170 (RESEND) | >----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------| OK it is even worse than I thought :-) Paco, do you then think the text proposed by Kartha is OK then? The text (with my editorial modifications): Implementer's Note: WS-BPEL treats faults based on abstract operation definitions, without reference to binding details. Normally, when sending or receiving a fault, a WS-BPEL process only deals with the fault information in the abstract fault message and a WSDL 1.1 binding is required to transform the abstract fault message data to/from specific communication media. In the case of SOAP bindings this would mean providing transformation between abstract fault message data and the sub elements of of the SOAP Fault element, namely the faultcode, faultstring, faultactor and detail elements. However the WSDL 1.1 standard SOAP binding explicitly precludes mapping any information from an abstract fault message to a SOAP Fault other than the contents of the detail element. In other words there is no standard way to relate the faultcode, faultstring and faultactor sub-elements of a SOAP Fault element to data visible to a WS-BPEL process. This specification does not provide a resolution for this problem. -----Original Message----- From: Francisco Curbera [mailto:curbera@us.ibm.com] Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2005 10:59 AM To: Satish Thatte Cc: Liu, Kevin; Kartha, Neelakantan; bpel spec Subject: RE: [wsbpel-spec-edit] Proposed text for issue 170 (RESEND) The message and part attributes in both soap:header and soap:headerfault are there for typing purposes only. They cannot relate to any of the messages instances that an operation exchanges; in particular, you cannot assume that the message/part combination that a soap:headerfault element specifies corresponds to the same instance message as the wsdl:fault that the operation specifies, even if their types (message/part) match a part of that message. That is, message/part in soap:header and soap:headerfault are not a mechanism to reference a part in the input/output/fault messages of the operation, They are a typing mechanism for the data in the headers. In view of that I see absolutely no point in extending the discussion in the BPEL spec beyond Section 3.6 of WSDL 1.1. Paco |---------+----------------------------> | | "Satish Thatte" | | | <satisht@microsof| | | t.com> | | | | | | 01/14/2005 02:16 | | | PM | |---------+----------------------------> >----------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------| | | | To: Francisco Curbera/Watson/IBM@IBMUS | | cc: "Liu, Kevin" <kevin.liu@sap.com>, "Kartha, Neelakantan" <N_Kartha@stercomm.com>, "bpel spec" | | <wsbpel-spec-edit@lists.oasis-open.org> | | Subject: RE: [wsbpel-spec-edit] Proposed text for issue 170 (RESEND) | >----------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------| But headers are invisible or not based on binding -- the SOAP binding allows explicit parts to be bound to headers. We don't see them as headers but in theory we may have private knowledge that a certain part of the fault message binds to the headerfault. On the other hand section 3.6 forbids a fault message to have more than one part. So the whole thing is still confusing and I was hoping the there was some consistent message in BP10 around this. If not, my recommendation would be that we should take the most conservative position and only talk about faults based on WSDL 1.1 section 3.6 and ignore the rest. What do you think? -----Original Message----- From: Francisco Curbera [mailto:curbera@us.ibm.com] Sent: Friday, January 14, 2005 11:05 AM To: Satish Thatte Cc: Liu, Kevin; Kartha, Neelakantan; bpel spec Subject: RE: [wsbpel-spec-edit] Proposed text for issue 170 (RESEND) I am still unsure of what was the original issue in the call that motivated this discussion but I agree with your statement below. IMO BPEL cannot access anything but content of the soap:detail field in a fault that is generated when the body is processed, and in fact only when that that detail field is associated with a wsdl:fault message in the corresponding operation (BP10 allows faults other than those indicated by wsdl:fault but I don't think they fit in BPEL since all reply messages need to be associated with a wsld operation). As for wsdl specified headers and associated header faults, the resolution of issue 77 implies that we consider those headers invisible at the BPEL level (I understand that is the current situation), so the case in which the fault detail is not used (because the details go in a header, possibly with a different element) is something out of scope for BPEL. Paco |---------+----------------------------> | | "Satish Thatte" | | | <satisht@microsof| | | t.com> | | | | | | 01/14/2005 01:07 | | | PM | |---------+----------------------------> >----------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------| | | | To: Francisco Curbera/Watson/IBM@IBMUS | | cc: "Liu, Kevin" <kevin.liu@sap.com>, "Kartha, Neelakantan" <N_Kartha@stercomm.com>, "bpel spec" | | <wsbpel-spec-edit@lists.oasis-open.org> | | Subject: RE: [wsbpel-spec-edit] Proposed text for issue 170 (RESEND) | >----------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------| So what is your overall recommendation for this issue? It seems that you agree BPEL cannot have access to faultcode etc. Then a BPEL fault can propagate its fault data only inside the detail element. Is that correct? -----Original Message----- From: Francisco Curbera [mailto:curbera@us.ibm.com] Sent: Friday, January 14, 2005 7:58 AM To: Satish Thatte Cc: Liu, Kevin; Kartha, Neelakantan; bpel spec Subject: RE: [wsbpel-spec-edit] Proposed text for issue 170 (RESEND) This is my interpretation of this problem as I understand it (since I missed the editors call this week I am not sure I have the complete context of the discussion). I hope it helps. Summary: The wsdl:fault message only describes contents of the Detail element in a fault; however, the Detail element cannot be used for header-generated faults; in that case the soap:fault that is generated goes in the body but contains no soap:detail element. The detail information is included in the header specified by the wsdl-soap:headerfault element, if present. The element that specifies this information is determined by the message definition named by the wsdl-soap:headerfault element. BP 1.0 also allows detail to be provided when the wsdl description does not specify it (in a wsdl-soap:fault or wsdl-soap:headerfault binding element).
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]