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

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

Paco,

    You put this very well (and lot more clearly than when I mentioned 
"secondary protocols" without elaborating on what that meant!).

    I think a lot of this debate has to do with what people expect to do 
with those SOAP headers. Some hold that they are suitable only for 
lower-level layers of protocol stacks, and certainly are not of concern 
at the business process level (as you say, it is relegated to the 
middleware). Others see a need to use SOAP headers for application-level 
purposes, or some business-level "awareness" of lower-level protocols 
(e.g., identity of  the signer of a document).

    I'll forgo comment on the dangers of all this SOAP-centric thinking; 
Satish has done a good job of articulating the WSDL-centric viewpoint 
(about which he and I are in agreement, I believe). However, we may need 
to discuss the above viewpoints (middleware vs. application use of  
"secondary protocols"). Can we (the TC, that is) agree that there is a 
clear separation between WSDL-described business messages, and 
lower-level protocols used primarily for QoS purposes?

    And where, in this careful separation of concerns, does 
WS-Addressing fit in? It seems to be peeking through to the business 
level, and thus requires support in the BPEL language. Are there other 
candidates that fit this pattern?

Best regards,
-Ron

Francisco Curbera wrote:

>
>
>Hi Ugo,
>
>It is interesting that you mention WSIF because WSIF follows very strictly
>the notion that one programs against the explicit porttype definition only,
>and relegates all protocol specific stuff down to the middleware - where it
>belongs. When we developed WSIF two years ago the whole idea was to have a
>Web services programming model counterpart of the WSDL separation between
>business interface (the porttype) and protocol and QoS specific function
>and artifacts. BPEL embodies today that same approach of trying to keep
>binding stuff from obfuscating the business logic while at the same time
>allowing you to run over multiple protocols (a fact which we conveniently
>exploited building the BPWS4J engine on top of WSIF.)
>
>In any case, I have to agree with you that WSIF lets you do really cool
>stuff ;-)
>
>Paco
>
>   .
>