Re: [wsbpel-uc] Suggestion: Drop the "Visibility into SOAP Headers"suggestion

["Monica J. Martin" <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>]

Frank Ryan wrote:

>Monica,
>
>I agree that a process may care deeply about anything associated with a
>message.  The biggest hurdle that I see is the fact that BPEL acts on
>messages as defined by a WSDL and WSDL does not take into account
>message attachments.  Therefore the thought of the group is that this is
>a binding issue and can not be described in a bpel file and that is the
>reason that the group thought that it was better left out of the use
>case group and I feel would be better addressed by the implementation
>subgroup with a statement of direction/best practice for this subject.
>  
>
mm1: Do you have some input then what happens if that attachment 
processing affects the state of the business process, because the 
logical business document and associated attachments may drive whether 
or not the process steps proceed, regardless if BPEL recognizes it 
explicitly or not. I understand your premise, although I believe the 
team may have several items to discuss that affect the process but may 
not be implicitly 'within it.'

Thanks.

>Frank 
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Monica J. Martin [mailto:Monica.Martin@Sun.COM] 
>Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 7:46 AM
>To: John Evdemon
>Cc: saskary@nuperus.com; wsbpel-uc@lists.oasis-open.org
>Subject: Re: [wsbpel-uc] Suggestion: Drop the "Visibility into SOAP
>Headers" suggestion
>
>
>John Evdemon wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Sid,
>>
>>On today's Use Case conf call [1], it was suggested that we drop your 
>>suggestion called "visibility into SOAP headers".
>>If I recall, your original suggestion dealt with a variety of topics
>>    
>>
>but
>  
>
>>drilled into attachments.  
>>You even offered a simple use case regarding healthcare and large
>>attachments [2].   
>>
>>Since business processes do not typically care about how an artifact is
>>attached to a message, this is probably out of scope for us.   
>>The participants on today's call seemed to agree with this fact and 
>>thought we should drop this potential scenario.
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
>mm1: Actually, in the logical sense, a business process may care about 
>an artifact being attached to a message. Perhaps as I suggested on the 
>previous use case, you should pend for more near-term cases.  If the 
>processing affects the status of the business process, would we not care
>
>about it?
>
>  
>
>>Please reply if you have any questions, concerns or objections.
>>
>>Sincerely,
>>
>>John
>>
>>[1] 
>>http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel-uc/download.php/453
>>0
>>/2003-12-15%20Meeting%20Minutes.PDF
>>[2]
>>http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel-uc/download.php/452
>>    
>>
>5
>  
>
>>/2003-12-01%20Meeting%20Minutes.pdf 
>>
>>
>>
>>To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster 
>>of the OASIS TC), go to 
>>http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel-uc/members/leave_wo
>>rkgroup.php.
>>
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
>
>
>
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of
>the OASIS TC), go to
>http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel-uc/members/leave_wor
>kgroup.php.
>
>
>
>
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel-uc/members/leave_workgroup.php.
>
>  
>