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] Are WSDL descriptions always required for abstract processes


Title: Message
Resend. please ignore if you already received it.
 
Looks like the message didn't go through and haven't shown in the TC mail archive yet.

Best Regards,
Kevin
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Liu, Kevin
Sent: Tuesday, Apr 27, 2004 02:39 PM
To: 'Tony Fletcher'; wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Are WSDL descriptions always required for abstract processes

HI Tony,
 
BPEL spec section 3 clearly states its dependency on WSDL1.1. As one example of the dependency, partnerlinktypes are defined as WSDL extensions. how a process can be constructed without a partnerlink?
 

Best Regards,
Kevin
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Tony Fletcher [mailto:tony_fletcher@btopenworld.com]
Sent: Tuesday, Apr 27, 2004 07:05 AM
To: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [wsbpel] Are WSDL descriptions always required for abstract processes

Dear Colleagues,
 
I would like to see if there is a simple and agreed answer to this question or whether I should raise as an issue (or add in to an existing issue such as 82 or 97).
 
My question is:
Are WSDL descriptions *always* required for abstract processes.  Is the answer clear and correct in the specification?
 
Imagine an process (A) that communicates with three remote processes (B), (C), (D).  Is it possible to produce an abstract process BPEL description on its own (one XML document) that conforms to the schema and to the letter and spirit of the textual specification, or is it required to always produce WSDL descriptions as well - if so how many and for what?  Three one for each of the 'A' ends of the A-B, A-C and A-D relationships, three one for each of the 'B', 'C' and 'D' ends of the A-B, A-C and A-D relationships respectively, or all of these making six in total?
 
The spirit of section 15.1 (and especially the second paragraph) might be taken to suggest that the WSDL descriptions are not required.
 
However, as Ugo has pointed out to me, the portType attribute is a qualified name type and is a required attribute on invoke, receive and reply, which implies that mechanistically the WDSL descriptions are required at present.
 
What say you Senators?
 

Best Regards,

Tony                          

Tony Fletcher

Technical Advisor
Choreology Ltd.
68, Lombard Street, London EC3V 9L J   UK

Phone: 

+44 (0) 1473 729537

Mobile:

+44 (0) 7801 948219

Fax:   

+44 (0) 870 7390077

Web:

www.choreology.com

Cohesions(tm)

Business transaction management software for application coordination

Work: tony.fletcher@choreology.com

Home: amfletcher@iee.org

 


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