Re: [wsbpel] Issue 11 - Call for Discussion

["David RR Webber" <david@drrw.info>]

Simple question.

Is it possible in BPEL today to pass the variables in the linkage section
as one block to a remote process via a WSDL call?

If so - how can this be done and what does the XML look like
on the receiving end?

Thanks, DW.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Alex Yiu" <alex.yiu@oracle.com>
To: <ygoland@bea.com>
Cc: "Ron Ten-Hove" <Ronald.Ten-Hove@Sun.COM>; "Wsbpel@Lists. Oasis-Open. Org
(E-mail)" <wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org>; <ALEX.YIU@oracle.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2004 4:09 PM
Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue 11 - Call for Discussion


>
> Hi all,
>
> I think Yaron's usecase (while+appendChild) is a valid one, which the
> atomicity of assign cannot help much in "schema inconsistent state
> situation". :-)
>
> However, as I mentioned before, BPEL community needs to recognize and
> agree that the 3 operations (e.g. insertBefore and appendChild)
> potentially added by issue 11 are NOT aimed to solve ALL XML
> manipulation problems. Those 3 operations are aimed at simple XML
> manipulation, NOT complicated ones.
>
> I think it is a good idea to make simple XML manipulation possible in
> BPEL and leave complicated XML manipulation to other languages. So, we
> will NOT run into a slippery slope situation and re-invent wheels for
> other emerging standards. (e.g. XUpdate)
>
> IMHO, it is perfectly fine for us to say some usecases of
> while+appendChild cannot be performed by the BPEL language itself. There
> may be semantic (e.g. this schema inconsistent state situation) and
> performance deficiency to perform those complicated XML manipulation in
> BPEL.
>
> One situation that I want to avoid is:
> A user just wants to do a simple insert into an existing document. There
> is no standard mechanism that BPEL specifies to do that. That user is
> forced to choose a potentially non-portable language or language binding
> to do just this extremely simple operation. Then, BPEL will end up in a
> close-to-zero portability situation.
>
>
> Thanks for reading this email!
>
>
>
> Regards,
> Alex Yiu
>
>
> Yaron Y. Goland wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Ron Ten-Hove wrote:
> >
> >> This is why <assign> is atomic. The intermediate states are never
> >> exposed.
> >
> >
> > Even trivial XML manipulation tends to involve some forms of
> > computation during the manipulation process. A classic example is a
> > while loop that goes through a document pulling out information in
> > order to create a new document. During the time the while loop is
> > iterating it is likely that the new document will be in a schema
> > inconsistent state. Assign's atomicity is of no use here since there
> > is no way to shove a while loop into an assign.
> >
> > More generally, any XML manipulation which is not strictly linear and
> > involves schema inconsistent intermediate states cannot be dealt with
> > in BPEL since assign cannot contain decision or iteration logic.
> >
> > Therefore if one wants to enable even simple XML manipulation in BPEL
> > one inevitably ends up having to create some kind of transacted schema
> > free zone. I'm suggesting we don't want to go there.
> >
> >> Is it your assertion that we should create a standard that MUST be
> >> supplemented by an unspecified companion language, in order to create
> >> executable processes?
> >>
> >
> > Not at all. There are many ways to make BPEL work on its own. But I am
> > asserting that BPEL should focus on the areas that it adds value and
> > not re-invent functionality that is widely available in a standardized
> > form.
> >
> >> -Ron
> >>
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster
> > of the OASIS TC), go to
> >
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel/members/leave_workgroup.php.
> >
> >
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of
the OASIS TC), go to
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel/members/leave_workgroup.php.
>
>