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

[Ron Ten-Hove <Ronald.Ten-Hove@Sun.COM>]

Ugo,

Ugo Corda wrote:

Ron,

 

The fact remains that the example I mentioned under issue 77 is a completely standard-compliant service (even though it is probably not one we would use as a recommended usage pattern). In fact the existence of such a case is explicitly called out in sec. 3.7 of the WSDL spec. I agree with you that is should not have been allowed to start with, but unfortunately it's out there now and we simply cannot say that it's non-standard.

    Can we distinguish clearly between "proper" (architecturally sound) use of WSDL 1.1, and legalistic (mis)interpretations of the same? If we can, then I suggest we concentrate on the former, and leave the latter to be addressed elsewhere. Is this unreasonable?

 

In my view it's just a matter of whether we want to support legacy applications or not. Again, my understanding is that this TC decided we want to support legacy cases even when they are deprecated by later specs like WS-I BP.

    My memory, aided by a search through my archive of the message traffic for wsbpel, has failed to recall this choice being made. Can you give me a pointer to where this decision was made? (Perhaps I am unwittingly covering old ground in this discussion.)

Cheers,
-Ron