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

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

> No, I disagree - the abstract interface of a service is ONLY
> defined by its portType(s).

Yes, I understand your position. My point is that it is just your personal position, not supported by anything said in the spec. You cannot expect designers to base their choices on anything outside the spec, no matter how reasonable those external argumentations are. That's one of the rules of the standards game ...

Ugo

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sanjiva Weerawarana [mailto:sanjiva@watson.ibm.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 24, 2003 10:51 AM
> 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 this is my last note on this topic ..
> 
> "Ugo Corda" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com> writes:
> > 
> > I would say that the abstract behavior of a Web service is 
> > defined by its abstract interface. The portType is just a 
> > subset of the WSDL 1.1 abstract interface, because abstract
> > messages are allowed in the abstract interface that are not
> > part of a portType. 
> 
> No, I disagree - the abstract interface of a service is ONLY
> defined by its portType(s).
> 
> > (Don't blame me for that: your name is on 
> > the WSDL 1.1 spec, not mine ;-).
> 
> I'll accept blame if it was written incorrectly, but see below.
> 
> > Let me quote here WSDL 1.1, sec. 2.3.2, Abstract vs. 
> Concrete Messages:
> > 
> > "Message definitions are always considered to be an abstract 
> > definition of the message content. A message binding describes
> > how the abstract content is mapped into a concrete format. However,
> > in some cases, the abstract definition may match the concrete
> > representation very closely or exactly for one or more bindings,
> > so those binding(s) will supply little or no mapping information.
> > However, another binding of the same message definition may require
> > extensive mapping information. For this reason, it is not until the
> > binding is inspected that one can determine "how abstract" the 
> > message really is".
> 
> Everything above is true - but its *only* talking about abstract
> message definitions and how they are bound to the "wire." It does
> not say *anything* about what constitutes the abstract interface of
> a service.
> 
> So, I will stick to my position that the interface of a service
> is defined by its portType(s) and thus BPEL should only allow
> access to the messages as brought in by the portType.
> 
> It seems like its time to agree to disagree ...
> 
> Sanjiva.
> 
>