RE: [wsbpel] Issue 47 and WS-I BP 1.0

["Ugo Corda" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>]

Bernd,

I think my request for BP-compliant UC artifacts is completely compatible with the needs you mention below.

Ugo

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eckenfels. Bernd [mailto:B.Eckenfels@seeburger.de]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 12:07 PM
> To: BPEL OASIS
> Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue 47 and WS-I BP 1.0
> 
> 
> Hello,
> 
>     Ugo:  I would still be very much in favor of our Use 
> Cases WSDL artifacts to be compliant with BP 1.0.
> 
> Actually I think we need both: clean+smart WSDL files which 
> are re-used often for demonstration and explanation use.
> 
> But we also need real+heavy examples, so we can use them as a 
> testing tool to verify our design in real world. For example 
> we might recognize, that a assign component with hundreds of 
> copy statements realy look mean :)
> 
> I would liek to see e.g. a xCBL Purchase Order with a multi 
> megabyte XML Schema Definition as well as Interface 
> descriptions of some interfaces of the major ERP systems. It 
> would be especially cool, if we have the same business 
> document modeled for each represented EIS vendor here.
> 
> Greetings
> Bernd
> 
> Ugo
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Satish Thatte [mailto:satisht@microsoft.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 11:33 AM
> To: Ugo Corda; Prasad Yendluri; Eckenfels. Bernd
> Cc: BPEL OASIS
> Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue 47 and WS-I BP 1.0
> 
> 
> I guess I am not seeing why we need to take on this problem - 
> RPC encoded or literal does not matter to the BPEL process.  
> If someone is policing WSDL 1.1 usage let them enforce that.  
> We can recommend BP 1.0 compliance for interop but if BPEL is 
> used in environments where BP 1.0 is not feasible or needed, 
> what does it mean for us to forbid the usage?
>  
> 
> 
> 
> From: Ugo Corda [mailto:UCorda@SeeBeyond.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 11:28 AM
> To: Satish Thatte; Prasad Yendluri; Eckenfels. Bernd
> Cc: BPEL OASIS
> Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue 47 and WS-I BP 1.0
>  
> Right, RPC literal would be fine, but RPC encoded would be in 
> violation.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Satish Thatte [mailto:satisht@microsoft.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 11:23 AM
> To: Ugo Corda; Prasad Yendluri; Eckenfels. Bernd
> Cc: BPEL OASIS
> Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue 47 and WS-I BP 1.0
> So for instance the RPC encoded services bound to SOAP/HTTP 
> would be in the "in scope but in violation" category?
>  
> 
> 
> 
> From: Ugo Corda [mailto:UCorda@SeeBeyond.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 11:18 AM
> To: Satish Thatte; Prasad Yendluri; Eckenfels. Bernd
> Cc: BPEL OASIS
> Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue 47 and WS-I BP 1.0
>  
> Let me clarify point 4 (sorry, I mislabeled it as 3) in 
> relation to point 1.
>  
> I think we should distinguish services that are not compliant 
> with BP 1.0 from those that are simply out of scope for BP 1.0.
>  
> If I have a Web service that is not bound to SOAP/HTTP, then 
> I would say it is out of scope for BP 1.0, so it's OK for 
> BPEL to interact with it.
>  
> My point 4 is about services that are within the scope of BP 
> 1.0 and still do not comply with its requirements.
>  
> Ugo
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Satish Thatte [mailto:satisht@microsoft.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 11:09 AM
> To: Ugo Corda; Prasad Yendluri
> Cc: BPEL OASIS
> Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue 47 and WS-I BP 1.0
> I doubt that we can mandate BPEL to be used with BP 1.0 
> compliant services only especially given the answer to 1 
> assuming it is correct, and given that there are many 
> services today that are not compliant (e.g., RPC encoded ones).
>  
> 
> 
> 
> From: Ugo Corda [mailto:UCorda@SeeBeyond.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 10:55 AM
> To: Satish Thatte; Prasad Yendluri
> Cc: BPEL OASIS
> Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue 47 and WS-I BP 1.0
>  
> I see a few separate issues/questions connected to the 
> relationship of BP 1.0 and BPEL.
>  
> 1- Would BP 1.0 be restricting BPEL to the point that some of 
> BPEL's functionality would not be available?
>  
> I cannot think of any such restriction off the top of my head.
>  
> 2- Would the fact that BP 1.0 only addresses the SOAP/HTTP 
> binding imply that also BPEL should be limited to that type 
> of binding?
>  
> I don't think that anybody would imply that.
>  
> 3- Should a BPEL process be offered as a Web service that is 
> BP 1.0 compliant?
>  
> My answer would be yes.
>  
> 3- Would it be fair to limit BPEL use to interacting with BP 
> 1.0 compliant Web services only?
>  
> My personal answer would be yes. But I am a member of WS-I, 
> and I understand other people might have different answers.
>  
>  
> Ugo
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Satish Thatte [mailto:satisht@microsoft.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 10:39 AM
> To: Prasad Yendluri
> Cc: BPEL OASIS
> Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue 47 and WS-I BP 1.0
> For the benefit of the non-expert could post a salient 
> example please?  Specifically, a BPEL usage pattern that 
> would not work if BP 1.0 is followed but would work if any 
> WSDL 1.1 portType is allowed.  In other words, is BP 1.0 a 
> restriction on the WSDL artifacts we use or potentially on 
> BPEL itself?
>  
> 
> 
> 
> From: Prasad Yendluri [mailto:pyendluri@webmethods.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 10:11 AM
> To: Satish Thatte
> Cc: BPEL OASIS
> Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue 47 and WS-I BP 1.0
>  
> The sections 5.5 and 5.6 in the basic profile 
> (http://www.ws-i.org/Profiles/Basic/2003-08/BasicProfile-1.0a.
> htm) are devoted to binding aspects but, several major 
> sections including section 4, other sections of 5 address 
> abstract aspects of WSDL, which is a pretty large portion. 
> All those are applicable BPEL IMO.
> 
> Prasad
> 
> Satish Thatte wrote:
> Most of the BP 1.0 directives are binding related.  BP also 
> forbids outbound operations which BPEL does not use.  Can 
> someone identify a directive in BP 1.0 that actually affects BPEL?
>  
> Satish
> 
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from 
> the roster of the OASIS TC), go to 
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel/members/le
ave_workgroup.php.