OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

wsbpel message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 11 Your opinion requested


Chris,

More good points!  Please see my notes below.

Thanks, DW.

Message text written by INTERNET:chris.keller@active-endpoints.com
> 
I agree that we may be trying to bite off too much with the proposed
additions to BPEL.  My idea for the new XPath functions was more of a
stopgap to allow 80% of what people needed directly within BPEL without
adding too much to the specification.  

>>>> Agreed - in the CAM work we have found just XPath 1.0 to be simple and
very capable as a baseline.
<<<<

The thoughts on externalizing are good.  We already had some discussion
of this idea, primarily around using XSLT to perform the
transformations.  I believe the main issue Danny had was around passing
in multiple messages into XSLT to be merged.  However we could require
access to the bpws:getVariableData functions within the BPEL/XSLT
environment to allow mapping from multiple inputs.  Does CAM allow
multiple inputs for Mapping?

>>>> Our approach to this has been to treat that as an external step too.
Commercial merge tools and transform tools are much more capable 
at doing this - or say a Perl script - and it just does not make sense to 
specify this.   So we expect the input to be an XML structure with all the 
data merged.  However - we DO allow you to specify multiple structure 
varients as inputs.   So it might be an OAG BOD structure say - but with 
five different flavours depending on context - but with the one set of
rules and mappings.
<<<<

Here are some syntax suggestions from previous threads.

>>>>>> Chris - this looks very nice.  The only nit I have is the use of
xform - since
the obvious potential confusion with W3C XForms -> maybe xlate="xxx" ? 
It's
not a show stopper though.  Otherwise this looks good to me.
<<<<<<<<<<<<

A proposed syntax where transform was added as an optional element under
the assign/copy operation:
<assign>
        <copy>
                <from> <!-- As specified for assign -->
                <to> <!-- As specified for assign -->
                <transform xform="bpel:xslt">
                        (<import href=""> | <xsl:stylesheet ...> |
xsl:transform...>)
                </transform>
        </copy>
</assign>

Or in addition to copy an assign/transform operation:

<transform xform="bpel:xslt">
        <from> <!-- As specified for assign -->
        <to> <!-- As specified for assign -->
        <xslt>
                (<import href=""> | <xsl:stylesheet ...> |
<xsl:transform
...>)
        </xslt>
</transform>

In either proposals the xform attribute would be used to specify the
engine used to perform the transform.  So theoretically we could have
xform="bpel:cam" or xform="bpel:XQuery".

Chris


<



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]