[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue 103 - Good Idea!
I am having trouble keeping up with this fast moving discussion. I am hoping that you will reach an agreement and then educate the mere mortals among us on what the consensus proposal is .. Satish -----Original Message----- From: Assaf Arkin [mailto:arkin@intalio.com] Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 7:59 PM To: Alex Yiu Cc: wsbpeltc; Satish Thatte; ygoland@bea.com Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue 103 - Good Idea! > (4) > Assaf suggested: > In WSDL 2.0, > $variable/ns:element[/ns:subElement] > In WSDL 1.1, > $variable/partName/ns:element > > I was wondering whether it make sense to add a WSDL QNAME > (ns:wsdlMsgName) like the following for WSDL 1.1: > > $variable/ns:wsdlMsgName/partName/... > > then the syntax would be more symmetrically between WSDL 1.1 and 2.0 > ns:wsdlMsgName => ns:element > partname => subElement > > The BPEL code migration may be easier from WSDL 1.1 to 2.0 If anyone has a good handle on where WSDL 2.0 is heading with their message definition, would be great to throw some ideas around. Ideally if you have a WSDL 2.0 interface that's backward compatible with WSDL 1.1, you could use the BPEL process with both 1.1 and 2.0 without change. Assaf
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]