[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 77 - Under specified operation definitions
Sure you are changing legacy code: you are adding the "transducer proxy". How do you know it does not disrupt existing deployments? This is not something up to you or me to decide. Ugo > -----Original Message----- > From: Satish Thatte [mailto:satisht@microsoft.com] > Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 12:34 PM > To: Ugo Corda; Sanjiva Weerawarana; Francisco Curbera > Cc: Ron Ten-Hove; wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 77 - Under specified operation > definitions > > > No need to change legacy code. It is perfectly possible to > build a tool > to take one of the "legacy WSDL" definitions, inspect the binding > element and generate a "better designed abstract WSDL" from it > automatically, along with an appropriate "transducer proxy". Might be > good business too if the problem is common enough, if not why would we > even bother to think about it? :-) > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ugo Corda [mailto:UCorda@SeeBeyond.com] > Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 12:24 PM > To: Sanjiva Weerawarana; Satish Thatte; Francisco Curbera > Cc: Ron Ten-Hove; wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 77 - Under specified operation > definitions > > 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. > > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]