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

["Ugo Corda" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>]

Ok, I think we are making progress understanding what exactly WSIF does.

> The client of the service
> (who's the one using WSIF) only gets to use the service thru the
> service's interface (portType). That's the guiding spirit and
> principle of WSIF.

Fine, so the WSIF client would not be able to manipulate the "Header" abstract message in my example (in other words, WSIF behaves the same way BPEL does).

As I pointed out before, other WS frameworks do not behave that way, and they allow users to directly manipulate the "Header" abstract message in my example (I know for sure because a customer of ours brought us that type of example asking us to support it in BPEL).

You might say that using WSDL 1.1 that way is a bad idea. I am not arguing with that. All I am saying is that it is perfectly legitimate to use it that way according to WSDL 1.1 (the spec actually explicitly calls out that case in sec. 3.7, when it says "The referenced message need not be the same as the message that defines the SOAP body").

So some users decided to use WSDL 1.1 that way, and we cannot tell them they made a mistake (they didn't: they just followed the spec). So we still have to deal with the legacy issue presented by these implementations.

How you solve this legacy issue is evidently very much related to your company's business strategies and priorities. Some companies tell their customers they should rewrite their code when it is not "right" (and they are happy to help them do that - for a fee, of course). My own company happens to work in a different type of business, which is based on making legacy applications interoperate. So not asking our customers to modify their existing code is one of our business' highest priorities ...

Ugo

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sanjiva Weerawarana [mailto:sanjiva@watson.ibm.com]
> Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 12:01 PM
> To: Ugo Corda; Satish Thatte; Francisco Curbera
> Cc: Ron Ten-Hove; wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 77 - Under specified operation 
> definitions
> 
> 
> OK let me try .. I'm not sure what you mean by a WSIF application,
> but an app that's using a WSDL to invoke a service should only
> be looking at the portType of the service. If the binding refers
> to other stuff (other abstract messages, whatever), then that's
> the business of the binding implementation. The client of the service
> (who's the one using WSIF) only gets to use the service thru the
> service's interface (portType). That's the guiding spirit and
> principle of WSIF.
> 
> I wouldn't characterize that as "WSIF only supports part of WSDL."
> I'd say that WSDL v1.1 had a grey area in the SOAP binding element
> soap:header and other WSIF bindings may have the same - basically
> that where that optional message attribute (of soap:header, for
> example) gets an actual message from is undefined. The general
> feeling (at least on the IBM side) was that that comes from your
> context, but of course its not documented. As such using it is
> simply a bad idea and in any case WSDL 2.0 will likely not have
> such a mechanism.
> 
> Sanjiva.
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ugo Corda" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>
> To: "Satish Thatte" <satisht@microsoft.com>; "Francisco Curbera"
> <curbera@us.ibm.com>
> Cc: "Ron Ten-Hove" <Ronald.Ten-Hove@Sun.COM>; "Sanjiva Weerawarana"
> <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>; <wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org>
> Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 11:04 PM
> Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 77 - Under specified operation 
> definitions
> 
> 
> > No, actually it wasn't. It was not clear whether Paco 
> referred to the
> soap:header binding or the abstract "Header" message. Since 
> he said "or
> anything else in the binding" I would assume he was only 
> referring to the
> binding part.
> >
> > In any case, I don't want to waste to much time discussing what WSIF
> exactly does (this was just an example, which might or might not be
> relevant). There are only two possibilities here:
> >
> > 1. A WSIF application cannot manipulate the "Header" 
> abstract message.
> > Ok, so WSIF cannot handle the full range of WSDL files 
> allowed by WSDL
> 1.1. Sorry, my WSIF example was not relevant to this 
> discussion. (Of course,
> that does not mean other frameworks cannot handle it either - 
> in fact, my
> example in issue 77 is taken from a real existing application 
> of a customer
> of ours).
> >
> > 2. A WSIF application can manipulate the "Header" abstract message.
> > In this case the WSIF example is relevant and shows that 
> WSIF applications
> can handle what BPEL cannot.
> >
> > Ugo
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Satish Thatte [mailto:satisht@microsoft.com]
> > > Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 8:52 AM
> > > To: Ugo Corda; Francisco Curbera
> > > Cc: Ron Ten-Hove; Sanjiva Weerawarana; wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
> > > Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 77 - Under specified operation
> > > definitions
> > >
> > >
> > > Hmm..  Paco wrote
> > >
> > > The application using WSIF to access the service does not see
> > > the header
> > > message or anything else in the binding
> > >
> > > Was that not clear enough?
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Ugo Corda [mailto:UCorda@SeeBeyond.com]
> > > Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 8:45 AM
> > > To: Francisco Curbera
> > > Cc: Ron Ten-Hove; Sanjiva Weerawarana; wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
> > > Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 77 - Under specified operation
> > > definitions
> > >
> > > Paco,
> > >
> > > The question relevant to this discussion is the following: can the
> > > application using WSIF see (i.e. set or get the value of) 
> the abstract
> > > message defined outside the abstract port? We know that 
> BPEL currently
> > > cannot.
> > >
> > > Ugo
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Francisco Curbera [mailto:curbera@us.ibm.com]
> > > > Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 8:22 AM
> > > > To: Ugo Corda
> > > > Cc: Ron Ten-Hove; Sanjiva Weerawarana; 
> wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
> > > > Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 77 - Under specified operation
> > > > definitions
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi Ugo,
> > > >
> > > > I would not agree with that conclusion. The way WSIF would
> > > > support your
> > > > example in issue 77 is through a binding module (called a
> > > > "provider" in
> > > > WSIF) that understans and takes care of the header as
> > > > declared by the WSDL
> > > > binding. The application using WSIF to access the service
> > > > does not see the
> > > > header message or anything else in the binding.  Same thing
> > > > with non-SOAP
> > > > bindings. This is a key design point because otherwise you
> > > loose your
> > > > ability to use different access channels with different QoS
> > > > characteristics
> > > > to reach the same service (different bindings). It also 
> results in a
> > > > cleaner programming model.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Paco
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >                       "Ugo Corda"
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >                       <UCorda@SeeBeyond        To:       "Ron
> > > > Ten-Hove" <Ronald.Ten-Hove@Sun.COM>, "Sanjiva Weerawarana"
> > > >
> > > >                       .com>
> > > > <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
> > > >
> > > >                                                cc:
> > > > <wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org>
> > > >
> > > >                       11/20/2003 01:43         Subject:  RE:
> > > > [wsbpel] Issue - 77 - Under specified operation definitions
> > > >
> > > >                       PM
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I conclude from this that my WSIF example seems 
> appropriate for this
> > > > discussion. WSIF would be able to support a case like the one
> > > > I gave for
> > > > issue 77, and it would be able to map the "Header" abstract
> > > > message to any
> > > > particular binding I want to express (including, but not
> > > > limited to, SOAP -
> > > > in particular, bindings that don't even have the concept of a
> > > > header)). Is
> > > > that correct?
> > > >
> > > > Ugo
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Ron Ten-Hove [mailto:Ronald.Ten-Hove@Sun.COM]
> > > > Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 10:30 AM
> > > > To: Sanjiva Weerawarana
> > > > Cc: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
> > > > Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 77 - Under specified operation
> > > > definitions
> > > >
> > > > WSIF is a set of bindings for Java and J2EE; it doesn't
> > > > extend WSDL in any
> > > > non-standard way that I am aware of. WSIF "understands" WSDL
> > > > files that use
> > > > those bindings. The message model is plain WSDL 1.1.
> > > >
> > > > -Ron
> > > >
> > > > Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
> > > >       I'm confused .. can you give an example of what 
> you mean by
> > > >       "abstract messages that are not part of an abstract
> > > operation"?
> > > >       Maybe I haven't understood what you have in mind ..
> > > >
> > > >       Thanks,
> > > >
> > > >       Sanjiva.
> > > >
> > > >       ----- Original Message -----
> > > >       From: "Ugo Corda" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>
> > > >       To: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" 
> <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>; "Francisco
> > > >       Curbera"
> > > >       <curbera@us.ibm.com>
> > > >       Cc: "Ron Ten-Hove" <Ronald.Ten-Hove@Sun.COM>; 
> "Satish Thatte"
> > > >       <satisht@microsoft.com>; <wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org>;
> > > >       <ygoland@bea.com>
> > > >       Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 7:04 AM
> > > >       Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 77 - Under 
> specified operation
> > > >       definitions
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >             So are you saying that WSIF can only process a
> > > > subset of all
> > > >             the legal
> > > >
> > > >       (according to WSDL 1.1) WSDL files? (Please notice
> > > that I am not
> > > >       talking
> > > >       about adding any extension at the abstract level - just
> > > > supporting
> > > >       what is
> > > >       allowed by WSDL 1.1)
> > > >
> > > >             Ugo
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >                   -----Original Message-----
> > > >                   From: Sanjiva Weerawarana
> > > > [mailto:sanjiva@watson.ibm.com]
> > > >                   Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 5:00 PM
> > > >                   To: Ugo Corda; Francisco Curbera
> > > >                   Cc: Ron Ten-Hove; Satish Thatte;
> > > >                   wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org;
> > > >                   ygoland@bea.com
> > > >                   Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 77 - 
> Under specified
> > > >                   operation
> > > >                   definitions
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >                   "Ugo Corda" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com> writes:
> > > >
> > > >                         Just curious: does WSIF allow 
> you to define
> > > >                         abstract
> > > >
> > > >                   messages that are not
> > > >                   part of an abstract operation?
> > > >
> > > >                         Ugo
> > > >
> > > >                   No it doesn't; WSIF only adds additional
> > > bindings to
> > > >                   WSDL,
> > > >                   not anything
> > > >                   at the abstract level.
> > > >
> > > >                   Sanjiva.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >       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/le
> > > ave_workgroup.php
> > >       .
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 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/le
> > ave_workgr
> > oup.php.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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/le
ave_workgroup.
php.