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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

wsbpel-spec-edit message

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

Subject: Re: [wsbpel-spec-edit] updated spec committed

The 13.4 text looks faithful to the resolutions.

As for issue 112, I believe the resolution was to remove both fromSpec 
and toSpec. We also said that toPart did NOT have to be ordered but that 
all parts did have to be mentioned.

I think one issue was 'what if a part is empty?' and I'm not sure we 
ever fully resolved that but my expectation is that the resolution would 
be that to send an empty part (e.g. a complexType part whose definition 
includes minOccurs="0") you need to assign an empty part using toPart. 
If that is the resolution then the requirement for toPart is that all 
parts have to be referenced, but not necessarily in order.


Francisco Curbera wrote:
> I took the job of applying the following issue resolutions: 12.1, 93, 111.1
> and 112.
> - 12.1 had already been applied (in fact I had already done so a month ago
> - we need to update the "Resolved issues awaiting editing into spec"
> table).
> - 93 has been applied to the spec AND the wsbpel_main.xsd schema. Note that
> the last text change for section 13.4 was defined in the resolution terms
> of the pre-12.1 text; the post-12.1 text already incorporates an equivalent
> change - Yaron, can you please check?
> - 111.1 has been applied to the spec, but I agreed to work with Alex on the
> schema; I believe Alex will be taking a first pass at updating
> wsbpel_main.xsd once he get the pen.
> - 112 - I am a bit unsure about what is the final resolution for this one;
> Yaron's resolution was amended (by me and Danny) to use the form
> <toPart part="ncname" fromVariable="ncname"/>
> and to not require a precise ordering of parts; I am not sure if this
> amendments apply as well to the <fromPart...> spec, or the <fromPart...>
> spec was left as in the original proposal. The minutes do not seem to say
> anything so I would appreciate everyone's help in reconstructing what
> exactly was decided (Yaron as the sponsor of the resolution probably
> remembers better than me) - then I will dutifully apply it to the spec.
> So I am keeping the pen for now, pending some clarification on 112.
> Thanks,
> Paco

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