[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 44 - portType is duplicated on Invoke activity and partnerLinkType
Thanks. Unless someone has a good argument for retaining portType in invoke I would propose that we just remove it.
From: Marin, Mike
I do agree that it is unlikely that a process will call itself, but the specification do allow it, because you do specify the port type in the Invoke. So you could specify the one that refers to the process itself. In order to retain that functionality, I did proposed to optionally use the role instead. But, I will be happy to modify my proposal to just remove the port type form the Invoke.
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?
From: ws-bpel issues list
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
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.
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.