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

[Prasad Yendluri <pyendluri@webmethods.com>]

Satish,

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?

I will coordinate with Kevin on providing concrete examples as part of the presentation to the team but, essentially any BPEL descriptions that use WSDL definitions that do not conform to the BP recommendations would risk the non-WS-I compliance. WS-I specification is at multiple levels including run-time / binding level and also at the WSDL documents (descriptions level).  E.g. a portType that names 2 or more operations the same ; or portTypes that uses <wsdl:message>s that employ types / elements that use wsdl:arrayType are not WS-I compliant. The issue is,  should BPEL stay above that or call for the enclosing / dependent WSDL sections to be WS-I compliant? Same applies to the schema aspects.

Prasad

 

---

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/leave_workgroup.php.