[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 72 - (really, was RE: [wsbpel] Issue 47 and WS-I BP 1.0)
Please see my answers below. Ugo > -----Original Message----- > From: Furniss, Peter [mailto:Peter.Furniss@choreology.com] > Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 4:35 AM > To: Furniss, Peter; BPEL OASIS > Subject: [wsbpel] Issue - 72 - (really, was RE: [wsbpel] Issue 47 and > WS-I BP 1.0) > > > n my fight with mailer, I lost the change to the subject ! > > treat as issue 72 ! > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Furniss, Peter > > Sent: 02 October 2003 10:57 > > To: BPEL OASIS > > Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue 47 and WS-I BP 1.0 > > > > > > (had some arguments with my mailer getting this out - > > apologies if it eventually turns up twice) > > > > > > From issues list editor: Please follow up this thread with an > > Issue - 72 > > - subject, not the Issue 47 one : I'm getting bored with > > hand-modifying the html to move the links. > > > > On the substance (Following are personal views) > > > > If the question is, > > > > "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 [UC] As I already mentioned before, non SOAP/HTTP bindings are out of scope for BP 1.0. Please let them be out of our scope of discussion too. > > 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) > > [UC] I would be very interested in hearing concrete examples of that. > > 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 > > [UC} Same observation. Let's find concrete examples of that, and then we can discuss. I suspect we won't find any. > > the e) : d) distinction is that a business-derived use-case > > might require BP 1.0-exceeding features (exotic MEPs, say). [UC} Again, I don't see our spec covering the use of any exotic MEPs. > > 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 ? > > > > 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 [UC} Are you saying that it is ok if company A builds BPEL process PA, and company B builds BPEL process PB, and PA and PB cannot interact because companies A and B interpreted the WSDL and SOAP specs in a non-interoperable way? > > 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 > > > > > > > > > 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.h > > tm) 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/le > ave_workgroup.php. > > > 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/le ave_workgroup.php.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]