RE: FW: [wsbpel] Proposed resolution of Issue 39 - Inconsistent syntax for query attribute values in spec examples

["Ugo Corda" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>]

Kevin,

The WS-I BP 1.0 profile is very restricted in terms of WSDL bindings: only SOAP over HTTP. On the other hand, it seems that the original BPEL authors had in mind a broad range of possible bindings (see for example the end of section 10, where it talks about a possible non-XML EDI binding of a port type).

It might be time to raise a new issue regarding the intended scope of WSDL bindings addressed by the spec.

Ugo

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Liu, Kevin [mailto:kevin.liu@sap.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 3:44 PM
> To: 'Glenn Mi'; Ugo Corda; 'edwink@collaxa.com'
> Cc: 'wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org'
> Subject: RE: FW: [wsbpel] Proposed resolution of Issue 39 - 
> Inconsistent
> syntax for query attribute values in spec examples
> 
> 
> 
> Glenn made a good point - the use of "type" vs "element" 
> attribute in wsdl:part may have significant impact on the 
> binding and the wired message. 
> 
> It reminds me that as a group, we may need to ask ourselves 
> the following questions sooner or later. Based on the answer, 
> we may need to tune up the WSDL examples used in the current draft.  
> 
> - Which version of WSDL do we want to use? WSDL1.1 or WSDL 
> 1.2 ( or  I should say the deliverable of the w3c WSD working 
> group, it might be called WSDL 2.0 eventually)?
> - Do we care about WS-I Basic Profile (BP) 1.0 (see [1])?
> - Do we want to indicate a preference for RPC style in our examples? 
> 
> Since BPEL only uses the wsdl:portType definition and the 
> binding definition is typically not available, the last 
> question may seem irrelevant. But if we want to continue to 
> use wsdl1.1, we may need to consider being compliant with 
> WS-I BP1.0, then the wsdl:part definition does have 
> significant impact on what kind of bindings can be used and 
> how the wired message may look like.  Basically, according to 
> BP1.0, when soap over http is concerned, 
> 
> - a wsdl:part which uses the @type attribute to reference a 
> schema type can only be used by a RPC style operation
> - for RPC style operations, the wired message must have a 
> wrapper element which is the child of soap:body and has the 
> same name as the operation. Part accessors have the same name 
> as the corresponding wsdl:part 
> 
> - a wsdl:part which use the @element attribute to refer to a 
> global element can only be used by a Document style operation
> - for Document style operations, in the wired message, the 
> child of soap:body must be the element referenced by the part 
> definition
> 
> In most, if not all, of the WSDL examples used in the current 
> draft, wsdl:part uses @type attribute. According to BP1.0, 
> *THIS IMPLIES THAT RPC STYLE IS CHOSEN*, I suspect that is 
> the real intention of the authors.  IMHO, as a process 
> definition language, BPEL should at least provide balanced 
> number of examples that can be used by document style.  
> 
> If wsdl1.2 is to be used, of course the examples need to be 
> changed, but it will be a different story. Though I am in 
> favor to use a standard version of WSDL, I am not sure if 
> it's practical for us to use wsdl1.2 given that we have a 
> very aggressive schedule and wsdl1.2 is still under heavy 
> construction.
> 
> Best Regards, 
> Kevin 
> 
> [1] 
> http://www.ws-i.org/Profiles/Basic/2003-06/BasicProfile-1.0-Bd
> AD.html (section 5.3.1 is most relevant)
> 
>