RE: [wsbpel] Issue 44 - Summary so far.

["Yaron Goland" <ygoland@bea.com>]

+1

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marin, Mike [mailto:MMarin@filenet.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 12:11 PM
> To: ygoland@bea.com; wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue 44 - Summary so far.
> 
> 
> 
> To keep things clean, I will remove proposal two from issue 
> 44, and let
> keep issue 52 for calling yourself. That way there is only 
> one proposal
> for issue 44 as follows:
> 
> Issue 44 - Proposal: Just remove the portType from the invoke activity
> and use the portType that corresponds to the partnerRole in the
> partnerLink. This covers most if not all the use cases. With the only
> exception of a process that wants to call itself, which is 
> discussed by
> issue 52.
> 
> --
> Regards,
> Mike Marin
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yaron Goland [mailto:ygoland@bea.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 11:55 AM
> To: Marin, Mike; wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue 44 - Summary so far.
> 
> Hum... maybe I shouldn't have created Issue 52 and instead should have
> kept it part of Issue 44? I thought Issue 44 would just address the
> issue of removing the portType and that issue 52 would address how to
> deal with calling yourself. Because, given your summary below, clearly
> 52 (http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wsbpel/200308/msg00158.html)
> should be a 3rd option.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Marin, Mike [mailto:MMarin@filenet.com]
> > Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 5:40 PM
> > To: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
> > Subject: [wsbpel] Issue 44 - Summary so far...
> >
> >
> >
> > This issue deals with the fact that in the current syntax 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. So far, there is no
> > disagreement on this analysis.
> > 
> > There are two possible solutions (or proposals):
> > 
> > 1- (proposal 1): Just remove the portType from the invoke 
> activity and
> > use the portType that corresponds to the partnerRole in the
> > partnerLink.
> > This covers most if not all the use cases. With the only
> > exception of a
> > process that wants to call itself, in which case you will
> > need to create
> > another partnerLink (using the same partnerLinkType) and use
> > it instead.
> > So, in this case you end with two partner links.
> > 
> > 2- (proposal 2): Remove the portType from the invoke 
> activity, but add
> > an optional role. 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.
> > 
> > With this second proposal, in most cases the syntax will 
> look exactly
> > the same as with the first proposal. But, if a process needs to call
> > itself, instead of adding a partner link, it just adds a role to the
> > invoke activity.
> > 
> > Both solutions are similar and better than the current
> > syntax. The only
> > real difference is the optional role on the invoke activity
> > to preserve
> > the functionality currently specified, but that seems to be 
> uncommon.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Mike Marin
> > 
> >
> >
> > 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: wsbpel-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: wsbpel-help@lists.oasis-open.org
> >
> >
> 
>

<<attachment: winmail.dat>>