[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]