RE: [wsbpel] Groups - BPEL4WS 1.1 Issues Log May 23.doc uploaded

["Edwin Khodabakchian" <edwink@collaxa.com>]

I was trying to make 2 points:

1) BPEL's interoperability is a Web service interoperability problem.
 
2) Portability on the other side is a true BPEL problem. SQL had some
   of the same portability promisses. It delivered huge value to the 
   enterprise while not delivering 100% code portability.

Edwin

> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ugo Corda [mailto:UCorda@SeeBeyond.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 6:25 AM
> To: edwink@collaxa.com; wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
> 
> > - We should have interoperability out of the box through Web 
> >   service interfaces
> 
> That could be more complicated depending on which WSDL 
> binding we are considering. So far I have not seen any 
> constraint in BPEL for WSDL to be limited to the standard W3C 
> bindings (SOAP, or HTTP, or MIME).
> 
> Even considering WSDL SOAP binding only, then it is an issue 
> of whether we are considering SOAP over HTTP, or some other 
> popular but proprietary bindings (e.g. to a JMS provider).
> 
> Or are you thinking of a different type of interoperability?
> 
> Ugo
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: wsbpel-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: wsbpel-help@lists.oasis-open.org
> 
>