[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 77 - Under specified operation definitions
Ron,
> What, exactly
is the relationship between an operation defined in a port type, and that
operation as bound
> to a particular
protocol? Is this why you are concerned about relying on port types for
our message descriptions?
I am not sure I
understand your question. What I was saying is that there is no substantial
difference between a binding for a portType and a binding for an abstract
message not belonging to a port type. In either case, the associated parts might
or might not be used by the binding. So, you might find variables in current
BPEL activities that, for some bindings, have parts not mapped to the wire
(so are uninitialized), despite the fact that they belong to what you consider
the "true" abstract interface.
> "A binding
defines message format and protocol details for operations and messages defined
by a particular portType."
> This clearly
separates the layers. I don't see any mention of "extra" abstract messages
becoming part of the abstract endpoint type.
The fact that a
reference to "extra" abstract messages binding is missing is just an example of
how poorly "extra" abstract messages are described in the spec. (That's, after
all, the source of all these discussions). Or are you saying that this
binding rule does not apply to "extra" abstract messages? Then where is that
binding rule specified? And if those "extra" abstract messages have no
binding defined, how would you be able to map them to a soap:header, the same
way you do for a part defined in a portType?
> Can you provide
us with a definition of an abstract endpoint using WSDL terminology?
Here it is. "An abstract endpoint is defined by a particular portType
plus all the abstract messages not belonging to any portType. A particular
binding will specify which parts in those "extra" abstract messages will
belong the concrete endpoint (the same way that the binding will specify
which parts in the portType will belong to the concrete
endpoint)".
You certainly can say that this interpretation is
arbitrary, but yours is too for the simple reason that the WSDL 1.1 spec *does
not* define what an abstract endpoint is. Any such definition can only be
derived by interpretation of certain parts of the spec. Since the spec itself is
unfortunately unclear, different interpretations can be derived from
it.
Ugo
-----Original Message-----
From: Ron Ten-Hove [mailto:Ronald.Ten-Hove@Sun.COM] Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2003 12:03 PM To: Ugo Corda Cc: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 77 - Under specified operation definitions Ugo, |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]