[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: Issue 39 - Proposed resolution of Issue 39 - Inconsistent syntax for query attribute values in spec examples
Hi Kevin, If you look at my latest proposal for resolving issue 39 you'll see I changed the example on page 38 (where the part is currently not defined) and added a part definition done in terms of an element instead of a type. Regards, Ugo > -----Original Message----- > From: Liu, Kevin [mailto:kevin.liu@sap.com] > Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 12:07 PM > To: Ugo Corda; 'wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org' > Subject: RE: FW: [wsbpel] Proposed resolution of Issue 39 - > Inconsistent > syntax for query attribute values in spec examples > > > Hi Ugo, > > You are right that BP 1.0 is only relevant for WSDL1.1 and is > only focuses on SOAP/HTTP binding. I also agree that BPEL > should not have the same limitation, and our examples should > be applicable to other bindings. > > But my point is that soap/http binding is the mostly used > binding (especially with the endorsement of BP1.0), and we > should be careful not to showing a strong preferences for RPC > style in our examples > > My questions in the original message are still valid. If we > decide to continue to use wsdl1.1, we may need to open an > issue to provide some examples which use wsdl:part defined in > xsd elements. > > Best Regards, > Kevin > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ugo Corda [mailto:UCorda@SeeBeyond.com] > Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 4:22 PM > To: Liu, Kevin; wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: RE: FW: [wsbpel] Proposed resolution of Issue 39 - > Inconsistent syntax for query attribute values in spec examples > > 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) > > > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]