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

["Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>]

"Ugo Corda" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com> writes:
> 
> Sorry, that is not what I meant. For me an abstract endpoint is 
> the union of a particular portType plus all the abstract messages
> defined outside a portType (end of definition of an abstract endpoint).

Defined outside the portType in what context? In the same WSDL 
document? In that document plus all imported documents? In all 
WSDL documents for the same namespace?

For example, if I have *one* WSDL with:

    <message name=m1 .../>
    <message name=m2 .../>
    <message name=m3 .../>
    <message name=m4 .../>
    <message name=m5 .../>

    <portType name=pt1>
        <operation name=p1_o1> <input message=m1/> </operation>
        <operation name=p1_o2> <input message=m2/> </operation>
        <operation name=p1_o3> <input message=m3/> </operation>
        <operation name=p1_o4> <input message=m4/> </operation>
    </portType>

    <portType name=pt2>
        <operation name=p2_o1> <input message=m5/> </operation>
    </portType>

    <binding name=b1 type=pt1/>

    <binding name=b2 type=pt2/>

    <service name=s1> 
        <port name=p1 binding=b1/>
        <port name=p2 binding=b2/>
    </service>

Now is the abstract endpoint for port p1 = {pt1, m5} and that for
p2 = {pt2, m1, m2, m3, m4} ???

That makes absolutely *no* sense! 

The point is that WSDL documents can have more than one portType
and more than just the messages that are defined for that portType.
If you don't stick to the discipline that a portType is the 
abstract interface (which I suggest is amply clear in WSDL 1.1
even though you don't agree) then all hell breaks loose.

Sanjiva.