Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 44 - portType is duplicated on Invoke activityand partnerLinkType

[Danny van der Rijn <dannyv@tibco.com>]

speaking of which there is currently no way to disambiguate which request to
<reply> to if 2 <receive>s have happened for the same
partner/porttype/operation.  this may be an edge case that we're not
interested in solving, but i wanted to point it out as an issue.  i think
i'll open this as a new issue for tracking purposes.

danny

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Eckenfels. Bernd" <B.Eckenfels@seeburger.de>
To: <wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 6:52 AM
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 44 - portType is duplicated on Invoke activity
and partnerLinkType


Hello,

what about the reply activity?

Currently it requires the designer to fill in the right
partner/porttype/operation

Another idea I had (with a somewhat different semantic) is to link the reply
to the associated receive on desing time, by use of elemnt IDs.

<receive id="1" ... />
....
<reply href="1" />

I am not sure, if it is intentional to have multiple receives with the same
port, and reply will answer to the one which was used, or is it more
intentional, to specifically reply to a given receive, and make sure the
control flow handles this.

Anyway, if we touch the receive signature, we might want to modify reply
accordingly.

Greetings
Bernd

-----Original Message-----
From: Satish Thatte [mailto:satisht@microsoft.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 12:44 AM
To: Marin, Mike; wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
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 [mailto:MMarin@filenet.com]
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 1:23 PM
To: Satish Thatte; wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 44 - portType is duplicated on Invoke activity
and partnerLinkType



Satish,



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.



--

Regards,

Mike Marin



-----Original Message-----
From: Satish Thatte [mailto:satisht@microsoft.com]
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 1:01 PM
To: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
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:peter.furniss@choreology.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 3:41 AM
To: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
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
<http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel> 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
<http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel/documents.php> 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
<http://www.choreology.com/external/WS_BPEL_issues_list.html> constant URL.


Issue - 44 - portType is duplicated on Invoke activity and partnerLinkType


Status: open
Date added: 5 Aug 2003
Submitter: Marin, Mike <mailto:MMarin@filenet.com>
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
wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.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.

--------------------------------------------------------------------- To
unsubscribe, e-mail: wsbpel-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org For additional
commands, e-mail: wsbpel-help@lists.oasis-open.org