OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

wsbpel message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 77 - Under specified operation definitions


    I'm glad you appreciated my little joke; I actually have a picture of this sketched on a whiteboard of what is otherwise a very serious-looking architecture diagram, where a spigot serves to rinse the SOAP off in-bound messages. It seems the only part of the diagram that everyone remembered afterwards! It certainly made the point I was making more memorable.

    More seriously, I am still trying to work through the implications of Yaron's proposal concerning the optional headers. This is partly a SOAP issue, and is partly created by the inadequacies of WSDL. When I gave a presentation at JavaOne earlier this year on choreography, collaboration and orchestration (with BPEL taking an important place), I stated that one of the motivations behind some current WS-related initiatives is to "fix" WSDL 1.1. Here is yet another example of the same. For me the real question is, do we absolutely need to "fix" this WSDL deficiency in BPEL? Or do we let individual implementations "fix" it their own ways? Will this affect interoperability? Will this affect compatiblity when we move forward to WSDL 2?  I certainly agree with Yaron that we should worry about these things, but I am still trying to answer them for myself before trying to power-wash off that last bit of soap... ;-)


Satish Thatte wrote:



With your idea of rinsing SOAP off the body of BPEL, your agreement with Yaron also amounts to rejecting Yaron’s proposals for dealing with optional headers.  I assume that is intentionally left unsaid .. ;-)




[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]