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] Q: process category?


As I implied in my other mail, all the issues here also occur in XML Schema where everyone seems happy with QNames.  What do we need to say in addition to what we do to bring us on par?  XSD experts, how does XSD make everyone comfortable about this?

 


From: Edwin Khodabakchian [mailto:edwink@collaxa.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 1:56 PM
To: 'Ron Ten-Hove'; Satish Thatte
Cc: 'Sid Askary'; wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Q: process category?

 

Ron,

 

Assigning a UUID to a process opens the door to the problems related to change management, versioning and life cycle management. Unless we decide to get down to the level of what a BPEL deployment unit looks like, I am not sure that adding UUID brings any value.


Edwin

 


From: Ron Ten-Hove [mailto:Ronald.Ten-Hove@Sun.COM]
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 1:35 PM
To: Satish Thatte
Cc: Sid Askary; wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Q: process category?

Satish Thatte wrote:

See below



[Ten-Hove]  A process category may fall mostly into the "deployment" bucket, and thus be ultra vires. Alternatively, perhaps it would be useful to give each process type a globally unique identifier.

 [Satish Thatte] It is easy to manufacture a unique QName from the targetNamespace and NCName of the process -- one may claim that this is in fact implied by the usual semantics of targetNamespaces.

[Ten-Hove] This technique would work, but it is a convention, not a guaranteed property of process definitions. Unless one has complete control of tools, deployment and run-time, a convention cannot be used to guarantee this uniqueness property.

As an alternative to an explicit uuid attribute, we may try adding wording requiring the convention you suggest. Something like:

The name and targetNamespace of the process must be globally unique. If an existing process is modified, the name and/or tns must be modified to ensure that the new version of the process has a unique identity, such that it cannot be confused for the old.

I don't particularly like this -- it sounds a lot like a hack, and makes it sound like we never heard of UUIDs! But personal tastes aside,  does this sound reasonable?

Cheers,
-Ron



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