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 47 and WS-I BP 1.0


Most WS-I recommendations boil down to recommended best practices for interoperability.
Hence IMO it would be good to follow those in the examples used with the use cases..

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue 47 and WS-I BP 1.0
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 11:46:22 -0700
From: Satish Thatte <satisht@microsoft.com>
To: Ugo Corda <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>, Prasad Yendluri <pyendluri@webmethods.com>, Eckenfels. Bernd <B.Eckenfels@seeburger.de>
CC: BPEL OASIS <wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org>


I completely agree that our use cases should be BP 1.0 compliant – in fact I would vote to mandate that.

 


From: Ugo Corda [mailto:UCorda@SeeBeyond.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 11:40 AM
To: Satish Thatte; Prasad Yendluri; Eckenfels. Bernd
Cc: BPEL OASIS
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue 47 and WS-I BP 1.0

 

As I hinted in my previous note, I do not feel that strongly about point 4. It would be fine with me if it is only a recommendation instead of a requirement.

 

I would still be very much in favor of our Use Cases WSDL artifacts to be compliant with BP 1.0.

 

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




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