Subject: re: [wsbpel] Issue - 44 - portType is duplicated on Invoke activity and partnerLinkType
________________________________________ From: Satish Thatte Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 1:01 PM To: 'email@example.com' Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 44 - portType is duplicated on Invoke activity and partnerLinkType I agree with the analysis and the proposal except that I don't see the need for the optional role specification. When would a process need to invoke itself? And in the rare cases when it does, the binding of the portLinks to create the cycle could be done externally relative to the process definition, could it not? Satish ________________________________________ From: ws-bpel issues list editor [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 3:41 AM To: email@example.com Subject: [wsbpel] Issue - 44 - portType is duplicated on Invoke activity and partnerLinkType This issue has been added to the wsbpel issue list. The issues list is posted as a Technical Committee document to the OASIS WSBPEL TC pages on a regular basis. The current edition, as a TC document, is the most recent document with the title in the "Issues" folder of the WSBPEL TC document list - the next posting will include this issue. The list editor's working copy, which will normally include an issue when it is announced, is available at this constant URL. Issue - 44 - portType is duplicated on Invoke activity and partnerLinkType Status: open Date added: 5 Aug 2003 Submitter: Marin, Mike Date submitted: 01 August 2003 Description: The Invoke activity requires a partnerLink and a portType. However the partnerLink refers to a partnerLinkType, which also includes the portType. Therefore the portType in the Invoke is redundant. A partnerLinkType do refer to a maximum of two portTypes. Assuming that a process does not invokes itself, then the Invoke refers to the partnerRole, not myRole, so there is only one possible portType, for that Invoke. In the other hand, if we assume the process can invoke itself, then it will be better to specify the role in the Invoke activity instead of the portType, because role has process semantics instead of the portType. Submitter's Proposal: I propose that portType on the Invoke activity be removed and instead an optional role be included instead. When the role is specified, it must correspond to one of the two roles defined in the partnerLink. If the role is not specified the partnerRole in the partnerLink should be assumed. Changes: 5 Aug 2003 - new issue ________________________________________ To comment on this issue, please follow-up to this announcement on the firstname.lastname@example.org list (replying to this message should automatically send your message to that list), or ensure the subject line as you send it starts "Issue - 44 - [anything]" or is a reply to such a message. To add a new issue, see the issues procedures document.