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


Paco,

This thread originated from today's meeting discussions. At the time the UC presentation was made, I brought up the idea of having only BP-compliant WSDL in any examples we provide.

Later, during the discussion of Issue 47, the question was asked about what type of WSDL, 1.1 or 1.2,  we should be looking at. The discussion naturally moved to what kind of WSDL 1.1 we are talking about, and the idea was bounced around about stating that BPEL should work only with BP-compliant Web services. That is the origin of this thread.

I agree with you that the UC examples should be our major objective as far as BP compliance is concerned. Still there are other more subtle areas where consistency with BP relates directly to decisions we make regarding BPEL itself. 

For instance, we have been saying that interoperability is an important aspect of BPEL (it was just being discussed during the first meeting of the implementation subgroup), but that we should not worry too much about it and just say that BPEL deals with Web services and that Web services by definition are supposed to be interoperable. But how can we say that when we know too well of all the interoperability problems that have surfaced when only dealing with WSDL 1.1 (and SOAP 1.1)? So we need to further qualify our reliance on WSDL 1.1 with the BP 1.0 constraints in order to guarantee (or at least enhance) BPEL interoperability.

Another example of BP relevance to BPEL is the resolution of Issue 46. It would certainly be a bad idea if we said that the namespace of the part is something other than a null namespace (which WSDL 1.1 by itself would allow), when BP 1.0 specifies that a null namespace should be associated with the corresponding part accessor element (see R2735 of BP 1.0).

Ugo

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Francisco Curbera [mailto:curbera@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 6:49 PM
> To: Ugo Corda
> Cc: Eckenfels. Bernd; Prasad Yendluri; Satish Thatte; BPEL OASIS
> Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue 47 and WS-I BP 1.0
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am a little confused by this discussion.
> 
> The only thing we should be concerned about is whether BPEL *prevents*
> anyone from creating or using BP compliant services. 
> Otherwise, the BP only
> affects the WSDL and XSD definitions on which BPEL relies. We 
> should then
> respect the natural layering and leave BP compliance to WSDL and XSD
> authors, and out of BPEL.
> 
> OTOH, since the BP is a restriction on the usage of WSDL 1.1 
> and XSD, and
> BPEL supports all applicable WSDL 1.1 (except for outbound 
> ops and here it
> is consistent with the BP,) I don't believe BPEL prevents following BP
> directives in any way. Maybe someone can provide an example.
> 
> A different thing is whether our usage case examples should 
> contain WSDL
> and XSD definitions that are WS-I compliant. This is a good idea.
> 
> Paco
> 
> 
> 
> 
>                                                               
>                                                                     
>                       "Ugo Corda"                             
>                                                                     
>                       <UCorda@SeeBeyond        To:       
> "Satish Thatte" <satisht@microsoft.com>, "Prasad Yendluri"    
>            
>                       .com>                     
> <pyendluri@webmethods.com>, "Eckenfels. Bernd" 
> <B.Eckenfels@seeburger.de>         
>                                                cc:       
> "BPEL OASIS" <wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org>                    
>            
>                       10/01/2003 02:28         Subject:  RE: 
> [wsbpel] Issue 47 and WS-I BP 1.0                                    
>                       PM                                      
>                                                                     
>                                                               
>                                                                     
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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]