[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 77 - Under specified operation definitions
> If you consider extra info used by binding b1 to be part of the > service interface then how could you switch to using binding b2 > of the service? I don't fully understand your question. If you are referring to the fact that binding b1 specifies a non-portType part while binding b2 does not, the same can happen to a portType part: binding b1 can include it and binding b2 can leave it out. Where is the difference? By the way, there is never a guarantee that the variables currently specified in BPEL activities are meaningful with any possible binding. In some bindings, parts belonging to the corresponding message will be missing. As a special case, the whole contents of the variable might be missing on the wire. Ugo > -----Original Message----- > From: Sanjiva Weerawarana [mailto:sanjiva@watson.ibm.com] > Sent: Monday, November 24, 2003 7:48 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 > > > "Ugo Corda" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com> writes: > > > > 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 > > This is not my personal position. > > What you pointed to is a section of the spec that talks about > bindings and what they can do. I agree with you that bindings can > refer to other messages. However, those are *not* part of the > abstract interface of the service; those are simply extra information > that a given binding may use. > > If you consider extra info used by binding b1 to be part of the > service interface then how could you switch to using binding b2 > of the service? Your approach will make BPEL be tied down to a > specific binding at the time of modeling - which I would consider > extremely bad practice. > > Sanjiva. > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]