[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 77 - Under specified operation definitions
In your example, there are two abstract interfaces (according to my definition): ai1 = {pt1, m5} ai2 = {pt2, m1, m2, m3, m4} A particular binding for ai1 is free to bind m5 parts to the wire message. (It is also free to select any subset of m1-m4 parts). Similarly, a binding for ai2 is free to bind any of the parts from messages m1-m4 to the wire message. (It is also free to bind any subset of m5 parts). I don't see what the problem is with that. Ugo > -----Original Message----- > From: Sanjiva Weerawarana [mailto:sanjiva@watson.ibm.com] > Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2003 4:51 PM > To: Ugo Corda; Ron Ten-Hove > Cc: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 77 - Under specified operation > definitions > > > "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. > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]