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: [no subject]


On the substance (Following are personal views)

If the question is,=20

"BPEL should work only with BP-compliant Web services."

then I think answer is NO. Are we really saying that end-users would not
be able to use BPEL to handle legacy interactions, perhaps using
proprietary communications (and thus perhaps proprietary wsdl bindings
to express them in bpel-accessible terms). And what of local
interactions that are represented to executable BPEL as web services
(i.e. as WSDL with a funny binding).  Ok, those are binding questions,
but if there is an impact on the BPEL-visible aspects, would we want to
disallow it. It might be worth considering what, if anything, we seek to
disallow:

a) BPEL processes that can work with non-BP web services.

b) BPEL engines that support such processes

c) BPEL language constructs that could not be used with BP-compliant web
services (i.e. that require beyond-*basic*-profile facilities to be used
in a real case)

d) BPEL use-cases that require byeond-basic-profile facilities in their
worked-out example entries

e) BPEL use-casas that appear to require beyond-basic-profile
facilities, but which haven't been worked out in detail yet

the e) : d) distinction is that a business-derived use-case might
require BP 1.0-exceeding features (exotic MEPs, say). Is this disallowed
as a use-case candidate on that ground. Is it allowed in the use-case
catalogue, but marked as "deferred for future work" when it's clear the
wsdl can't be expressed in bp 1.0-compliant form ? Is it marked as
deferred only if the agreed features of BPEL CD-1 [1] are insufficient
to implement the use-case ?=20

Actually, I think "interoperability" as a BPEL goal needs very careful
thought. This is fundamentally a language for manipulating interoperable
services, not an interoperable protocol. The BPEL abstract to *define*
interoperable business protocols is enhanced by maximal capability, not
profiling.  I suppose I ought to join in the implementation groups
discussions.

Peter



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ugo Corda [mailto:UCorda@SeeBeyond.com]
> Sent: 02 October 2003 04:39
> To: Francisco Curbera
> Cc: Eckenfels. Bernd; Prasad Yendluri; Satish Thatte; BPEL OASIS
> Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue 47 and WS-I BP 1.0
>=20
>=20
> Paco,
>=20
> This thread originated from today's meeting discussions. At
> the time the UC presentation was made, I brought up the idea=20
> of having only BP-compliant WSDL in any examples we provide.
>=20
> Later, during the discussion of Issue 47, the question was
> asked about what type of WSDL, 1.1 or 1.2,  we should be=20
> looking at. The discussion naturally moved to what kind of=20
> WSDL 1.1 we are talking about, and the idea was bounced=20
> around about stating that BPEL should work only with=20
> BP-compliant Web services. That is the origin of this thread.
>=20
> I agree with you that the UC examples should be our major
> objective as far as BP compliance is concerned. Still there=20
> are other more subtle areas where consistency with BP relates=20
> directly to decisions we make regarding BPEL itself.=20
>=20
> For instance, we have been saying that interoperability is an
> important aspect of BPEL (it was just being discussed during=20
> the first meeting of the implementation subgroup), but that=20
> we should not worry too much about it and just say that BPEL=20
> deals with Web services and that Web services by definition=20
> are supposed to be interoperable. But how can we say that=20
> when we know too well of all the interoperability problems=20
> that have surfaced when only dealing with WSDL 1.1 (and SOAP=20
> 1.1)? So we need to further qualify our reliance on WSDL 1.1=20
> with the BP 1.0 constraints in order to guarantee (or at=20
> least enhance) BPEL interoperability.
>=20
> Another example of BP relevance to BPEL is the resolution of
> Issue 46. It would certainly be a bad idea if we said that=20
> the namespace of the part is something other than a null=20
> namespace (which WSDL 1.1 by itself would allow), when BP 1.0=20
> specifies that a null namespace should be associated with the=20
> corresponding part accessor element (see R2735 of BP 1.0).
>=20
> Ugo
>=20
> > -----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
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> > I am a little confused by this discussion.
> >=20
> > 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=20
> > should then respect the natural layering and leave BP compliance to=20
> > WSDL and XSD authors, and out of BPEL.
> >=20
> > OTOH, since the BP is a restriction on the usage of WSDL 1.1 and=20
> > 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=20
> following BP
> > directives in any way. Maybe someone can provide an example.
> >=20
> > A different thing is whether our usage case examples should contain=20
> > WSDL and XSD definitions that are WS-I compliant. This is a good=20
> > idea.
> >=20
> > Paco
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> >                                                              =20
> >                                                                    =20
> >                       "Ugo Corda"                            =20
> >                                                                    =20
> >                       <UCorda@SeeBeyond        To:      =20
> > "Satish Thatte" <satisht@microsoft.com>, "Prasad Yendluri"   =20
> >           =20
> >                       .com>                    =20
> > <pyendluri@webmethods.com>, "Eckenfels. Bernd"=20
> > <B.Eckenfels@seeburger.de>        =20
> >                                                cc:      =20
> > "BPEL OASIS" <wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org>                   =20
> >           =20
> >                       10/01/2003 02:28         Subject:  RE:=20
> > [wsbpel] Issue 47 and WS-I BP 1.0                          =20
>         =20
> >                       PM                                     =20
> >                                                                    =20
> >                                                              =20
> >                                                                    =20
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> > Right, RPC literal would be fine, but RPC encoded would be in=20
> > 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
> >=20
> > So for instance the RPC encoded services bound to SOAP/HTTP would be

> > in the "in scope but in violation" category?
> >=20
> >=20
> > 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
> >=20
> > Let me clarify point 4 (sorry, I mislabeled it as 3) in relation to=20
> > point 1.
> >=20
> > I think we should distinguish services that are not compliant with=20
> > BP 1.0 from those that are simply out of scope for BP 1.0.
> >=20
> > 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=20
> > with it.
> >=20
> > My point 4 is about services that are within the scope of BP 1.0 and

> > still do not comply with its requirements.
> >=20
> > 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=20
> > services  only especially given the answer to 1 assuming it is
> > correct, and given
> >  that there are many services today that are not compliant=20
> (e.g., RPC
> >  encoded ones).
> >=20
> >=20
> >  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
> >=20
> >  I see a few separate issues/questions connected to the relationship

> > of BP  1.0 and BPEL.
> >=20
> >  1- Would BP 1.0 be restricting BPEL to the point that some
> of BPEL's
> > functionality would not be available?
> >=20
> >  I cannot think of any such restriction off the top of my head.
> >=20
> >  2- Would the fact that BP 1.0 only addresses the SOAP/HTTP binding=20
> > imply  that also BPEL should be limited to that type of binding?
> >=20
> >  I don't think that anybody would imply that.
> >=20
> >  3- Should a BPEL process be offered as a Web service that
> is BP 1.0
> > compliant?
> >=20
> >  My answer would be yes.
> >=20
> >  3- Would it be fair to limit BPEL use to interacting with BP 1.0=20
> > compliant  Web services only?
> >=20
> >  My personal answer would be yes. But I am a member of WS-I, and I
> > understand other people might have different answers.
> >=20
> >=20
> >  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=20
> > please?  Specifically, a BPEL usage pattern that would not work if=20
> > BP 1.0 is  followed but would work if any WSDL 1.1 portType is=20
> > allowed.  In other
> >  words, is BP 1.0 a restriction on the WSDL artifacts we use=20
> > or potentially
> >  on BPEL itself?
> >=20
> >=20
> >  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
> >=20
> >  The sections 5.5 and 5.6 in the basic profile (
> > =20
> http://www.ws-i.org/Profiles/Basic/2003-08/BasicProfile-1.0a.h
tm) are =20
> 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.
>=20
>  Prasad
>=20
>  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 =20
> directive in BP 1.0 that actually affects BPEL?
>=20
>  Satish
>=20


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