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

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

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)
> > 
> > 
>