Re: [wsbpel] policy annotations and BPEL

[Ron Ten-Hove <Ronald.Ten-Hove@Sun.COM>]

Ugo,

Ugo Corda wrote:

A WSDL-based policy approach would certainly be portable and interoperable (assuming something like WS-Policy gets standardized). So the issue, as I understand from your previous note, is more in terms of how clearly and in centralized fashion the policy information is expressed, in such a way that it would simplify portability and interoperability (not enable it, since it's already enabled in the WSDL case).

    My other point is that the analyst works at a different level of abstraction than WS-Policy. How is he to express security or QoS intentions, when the WS-Policy framework provides only highly detailed statements about the  implementation? The analyst should be able to indicate that a particular message needs to be, say, tamper-proof, without having to make the very detailed choices that WS-SecurityPolicy requires.

 

But here again it's an issue of how much of the BPEL code the analyst actually sees when deciding to reuse it, etc.

    While the process of converting intentions to implementation details may indeed be performed by a clever tool set, the intention is lost when looking at the resulting BPEL and WSDL documents. To facilitate portability, reuse, and even composability, it is important that those intentions be captured. Unless, of course, the world settles on just one such clever tool set....

-Ron