[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 96 - Opaque Correlation Sets
> >Furniss: Aren't there also cases where the BPEL process requires that > >the communication be via a correlating protocol, but doesn't mind which > >one ? The requirement from the process is just that the communication > >be "connection-oriented" at application level - the application is not > >going to use its own data values to discriminate, and isn't interested > >in what the underlying protocol uses, so long as the conversations can > >be distinguished. Which underlying protocol is actually used is > >deferred to the binding. > > > >Or is this out in abstractional hyper-space ? > > > When we move outside of WSDL- and Schema-described XML > messages, don't > we lose some control? Doesn't this opacity bring risk with it? What > other issues have we not identified (plus allowing use of proprietary > specifications)? I didn't read Peter's remark as requiring to "move outside of WSDL- and Schema-described XML messages". I think his point includes cases where the correlation protocol is a standard, WSDL- and XML-based WS correlation protocol, but such that the BPEL language does not get to directly manipulate it. The analogy would be the use of a standard WS reliability protocol: even if it's there, the BPEL language itself does not get to manipulate it. Ugo
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]