[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: FW: [wsbpel] Proposed resolution of Issue 39 - Inconsistent syntax for query attribute values in spec examples
Liu, Kevin wrote: >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. > > mm1: There is an issue on WSDL 1.2 MEP to BPEL - issue 15. There are several other issues related to WSDL. Should we address them as a category or group? >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) >> >> >> >> > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >To unsubscribe, e-mail: wsbpel-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org >For additional commands, e-mail: wsbpel-help@lists.oasis-open.org > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]