OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

wsbpel message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

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

"Ugo Corda" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com> writes:
> In your example, there are two abstract interfaces (according to my
> 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.

The first problem is that its completely void of semantics. Your
argument would have that any <message> definitions which just
happen to get included to a WSDL automatically become part of
every interface in the document (or any other document later on
that includes this one). Just imagine the impact on re-usability
of WSDL documents with that view.

The other problem is that its defined by a figment of your
imgination, and not by anything in the spec. Where does it say
in the spec that m5 belongs to ai1 and that m1 also doesn't
occur there additionally? (I mean m1 is used in an operation
abstract and then again as a free variable in another operation.)
After accusing me of interpreting WSDL 1.1 you're coming up with
entirely new semantics for it.

Furthermore, WSDL 2.0 will have no such mechanism. The way to add
stuff in bindings will be via policies (features and properties)
and those may not even be expressed inline in the same WSDL
document as the binding.


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]