Re: [wsbpel] Issue 103 - draft proposal

[Alex Yiu <alex.yiu@oracle.com>]

Hi Ugo,

First of all, thank you very much for reading the proposal draft in details.

I guess I did consider the mapping identical / similar to your suggestion during our internal brainstorming. If you look at the original longer version of proposal (before the simplified version), I have two options listed in (2C).
I think what you are suggesting is option-I, while I prefer option-II.

The reasons that I prefer option-II are:

• Since the XPath to access a message part will always have a part name (e.g. $msgVar/partName/... ), the Xpath will be more intuitive:
  
• having an easy no-brainer mapping from <from variable="msgVar" part="partName" /> to XPath
  
• having a consistent XPath for both wsdl:part[@type] and wsdl:part[@element]: if we chose option-I, wsdl:part[@type] will have its partName in XPath, while the Xpath for wsdl:part[@element] does not.
  
• Consider Danny's example in previoue email, two parts of same element QName, if we chose option-I, we need to use position-based to distinguish different parts (e.g. $msgVar/bar[1]). partName cannot be a part of XPath anymore. 

I hope I have convinced you option-II is better.

Regarding to Issue 43, looking back into your resolution:
(I think you did a great job of catching those mistakes in the spec)

<message name="taxpayerInfo">
    <part name="identification" element="txtype:socialsecnumber"/>
</message>
<bpws:propertyAlias propertyName="tns:taxpayerNumber"
    messageType="tns:taxpayerInfo" part="identification"
    query="/txtype:socialsecnumber"/>

<bpws:propertyAlias propertyName="tns:shipOrderID" 
        messageType="sns:shippingNoticeMsg" 
        part="shipNotice" 
        query="/shipNotice/ShipNoticeHeader/shipOrderID"/> 

[bold part is your correction]

After passing Issue 103, the part semantics will be assimilated into query string. The same examples will become:

<bpws:propertyAlias propertyName="tns:taxpayerNumber"
    messageElement="tns:taxpayerInfo"
    query="/identification/txtype:socialsecnumber"/>

The "identification" part is merged to query string.

<bpws:propertyAlias propertyName="tns:shipOrderID" 
        messageElement="sns:shippingNoticeMsg" 
        query="/shipNotice/ShipNoticeHeader/shipOrderID"/> 

The "shipNotice" part is merged to the query string.


So, it is sync with what you want  ... I guess. :-)
Agree? :-)



Regards,
Alex Yiu


P.S.:
---------------
(2C)(option-I) A "wsdl:part" element which has an "element" attribute is mapped to an "xsd:element" which has a "ref" attribute referring to the element in "wsdl:part". The "xsd:element" has minOccurs=1 and maxOccurs="1".

    <xsl:template match="wsdl:part[@element]">
        <xsd:element ref="{@element}" minOccurs="1" maxOccurs="1" />
    </xsl:template>

(2C)(option-II) A "wsdl:part" element which has an "element" attribute is mapped to an "xsd:element" which share the same "name" attribute value with "wsdl:part". The "xsd:element" is based on an anonymous complex type, which has a sequence of one "xsd:element. The "xsd:element" has a "ref" attribute referring to the element in "wsdl:part" and has minOccurs=1 and maxOccurs="1".

    <xsl:template match="wsdl:part[@element]">
        <xsd:element name="{@name}">
            <xsd:complexType>
                <xsd:sequence>
                    <xsd:element ref="{@element}" minOccurs="1"
                        maxOccurs="1" />
                </xsd:sequence>
            </xsd:complexType>
        </xsd:element>
    </xsl:template>
---------------




Ugo Corda wrote:

I would also rewrite [EX-7] as:

 

<xsd:element xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" 
    name="GetLastTradePriceInput">
    <xsd:complexType>
        <xsd:sequence>
            <xsd:element ref="foo:TradePriceRequest" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/>
        </xsd:sequence>
    </xsd:complexType>
</xsd:element>

-----Original Message-----
From: Ugo Corda
Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2004 7:42 PM
To: Alex Yiu
Cc: wsbpeltc
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue 103 - draft proposal

Hi Alex,

 

If I understand your section 2 correctly, I think that your proposed mapping (2C) is inconsistent with our previous Issue 39 resolution, in the sense that the element constructed from a part with an "element" attribute should take its name from the value of the "element" attribute and not from the part name.

 

Ugo