[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Issue - 72 - Revised proposal to discuss
After the last attempt, let's have another try. I'm putting this out as for discussion - I'm hoping the proposal at the bottom will stabilise enough by about Thursday to try for a vote on Wednesday week. To achieve a consensus I think we will need to be more circumspect and limited in how much we reference BP. The critical question seems to be getting the scope situation clear. I believe people are agreed that BPEL things using/operating with the BP 1.0 referenced specifiations should be able to follow BP 1.0 BPEL things need use/operate with things that go beyond the BP 1.0 referenced specifications BPEL should not perversely take a different interpretation of underspecified WSDL 1.1 features from that taken by BP 1.0 (deliberately hand-waving on exactly what "things" covers). I'm less sure on whether there is agreement on BPEL things using/operating with the BP 1.0 referenced specifications should be able to go beyond BP 1.0 limitations One position would just be to say "BPEL implementations stand or fall on their compliance to BP 1.0 as WSDL, SOAP etc implmentations, in the (common) case that they are implementations of such. BPEL as such has nothing to say on BP 1.0, and the fact that a BPEL implementation also implements the BP 1.0-referenced specs does not impact the BPEL aspects.". Effectively wash our hands of the whole matter. (There have been strong statements against this sort of position in the previous discussions) How about, as a proposed resolution: Given that the scope of BP is confined to the specifications it references, and that BPEL is of wider application: P) In developing the BPEL language, where reference is made to specifications that are in BP 1.0 scope, the BP 1.0 interpretations of underspecified features will normally be followed. Q) Where use-cases and use-case artifacts are in BP 1.0 scope (i.e. using referenced specifications) they will be BP 1.0 compliant, if possible. R) The requirement (or non-requirement) of BP 1.0 compliance of BPEL engines or deployed processes is not affected by their use of BPEL. Better phrasing of any of those welcome. They are deliberately silent on some points that could be expanded. The "if possible" on Q is intended to allow a use-case that deals with handling non-BP 1.0 web-services, if anyone wants to define such. Such a use-case clearly cannot have BP 1.0 compliant artifacts and achieve it's purpose as a use-case.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]