[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
+1
dieter
|---------+---------------------------->
| | Danny van der |
| | Rijn |
| | <dannyv@tibco.com|
| | > |
| | |
| | 10/06/2003 08:08 |
| | PM |
| | |
|---------+---------------------------->
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| |
| To: BPEL OASIS <wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org> |
| cc: |
| Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue 47 and WS-I BP 1.0 |
| |
| |
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
i don't think any restriction should be required, only suggested. for
instance, what if the BPEL is replacing some other implemenation of a
non-compliant WSDL that is already in existence. would this BPEL be out of
conformance? that just doesn't make sense to me. if people's WSDL doesn't
conform, then they're going to know about it. why drag BPEL into that?
danny
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ugo Corda" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>
To: "Eckenfels. Bernd" <B.Eckenfels@seeburger.de>; "BPEL OASIS"
<wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 8:39 AM
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue 47 and WS-I BP 1.0
Bernd,
I agree with this position. Just a couple of clarifications.
>we would need to provide a web service which is non BP compliant.
This should be restated as: "we would need to provide a web service port
which is non BP compliant".
Also, we are talking about BP1.0, not BP1.1 (whose draft is not even public
yet).
As a last comment, I would also require that all our use cases examples are
BP1.0 compliant, unless there is some very good reason for introducing a
non-compliant one (i.e. it makes a particular point that could not be made
with a compliant example - e.g. it illustrates the use of bindings other
than SOAP/HTTP).
Ugo
-----Original Message-----
From: Eckenfels. Bernd [mailto:B.Eckenfels@seeburger.de]
Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2003 11:12 PM
To: BPEL OASIS
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue 47 and WS-I BP 1.0
Hello Ron,
I completely agree with you, Postel's law is important here. I had the idea
of "only provide BP services, and be able to invoke non-conformant, if the
implementor wishes to support it". Problem is, that there might be services
out there which are not BP compliant, and in order to use them, one has to
provide a non.compliant call-back port. This means, we would need to
provide
a web service which is non BP compliant.
So I think we can and should require all implementations of BPEL engines to
provide and consume BP1.1 conformat services (in order to be called BPEL
compliant), but we should also allow the implementors to suport other
bindings (and encodings even for SOAP/HTTP).
Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Bernd Eckenfels
Chief Architect
--
SEEBURGER AG - Edisonstr.1 , D-75015 Bretten, Germany
Fax: +49 (0)7252 96-2400 - Phone: +49 (0)7252 96-1256
mailto:b.eckenfels@seeburger.de - http://www.seeburger.de
<http://www.seeburger.de/>
-----Original Message-----
From: Ron Ten-Hove [mailto:Ronald.Ten-Hove@Sun.COM]
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 10:48 PM
To: Eckenfels. Bernd
Cc: BPEL OASIS
Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue 47 and WS-I BP 1.0
Perhaps we should invoke Postel's law, with respect to basic profile
conformance. To promote interoperability, we should be as permissive as
possible when dealing with (other) web services, but as conformant as
possible when creating our own (BPEL engine provided) web services.
I realize this falls mostly on implementations to worry about, but the
basic profile does contain a lot of restrictions and clarifications for the
"abstract" service model that may be of interest.. The ban on operation
overloading might be slightly simplifying, for example.
Anyway, a quick scan of the BP didn't reveal anything scary to me. It
seems to me that WS-I BP 1.0 compliance will be an implementation worry,
but
as a technology that will rely on interoperation of our SOAP
infrastructure,
we ought to encourage (but not mandate) BP compliance.
-Ron
Eckenfels. Bernd wrote:
Hello Ugo,
I think it is not good to speak about violation if an implementation is
able
to communicate with an larger number of systems.
Perhaps we should chnage this: "conformant BPEL engines must be able to
provide and consume Web Services according to BP 1.0a specification. Engine
should not provide Web Services with HTTP SOAP binding other than BP1.0
conformant.
Actually I see the point of requiring BP1.0 support as a conformance rule,
but I dont see a point of restricting engines to that, even if it applies.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Bernd Eckenfels
Chief Architect
--
SEEBURGER AG - Edisonstr.1 , D-75015 Bretten, Germany
Fax: +49 (0)7252 96-2400 - Phone: +49 (0)7252 96-1256
<mailto:b.eckenfels@seeburger.de> mailto:b.eckenfels@seeburger.de -
<http://www.seeburger.de/> http://www.seeburger.de
-----Original Message-----
From: Ugo Corda [ mailto:UCorda@SeeBeyond.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 8:28 PM
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
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/leave_workgroup.php
.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]