Hi
Alex,
Yes, I now see
that my proposed change is identical to your original option-I (which I had
not read yet).
Let me give you
some points that I consider negative when choosing
option-II.
- The "element"
mapping has a double level element (the part-named element plus the nested
element-named element), while the "type" mapping has only one level element
(the part-named element - I am not talking about any nested elements coming
from the type definition itself, of course).
- Option-II is not
consistent with what appears on the wire in the case of a SOAP binding.
(Before people start jumping on me saying that SOAP binding is not part of the
BPEL language, let me say that I know that very well, but at the same time I
think it is important to take into account what happens in the SOAP binding -
being it the current most important binding when it comes to actual
implementations - and to make sure that BPEL's direction does not seem at odd
with the current SOAP binding direction).
Let me elaborate
on this point. The SOAP binding of WSDL 1.1 (after WS-I BP 1.0
clarifications) can have two different mappings to WSDL parts, depending on
the style:
1) For rpc style
(the part has to have a "type" attribute), the element under the operation
name element on the wire has the name of the type (see BP 1.0, sec. 5.6.21,
the SOAP message in the example). This is consistent with your mapping
(2B).
2) For document
style (the part has to have an "element" attribute), there is only
one element directly under the SOAP body on the wire and it has the
name of the "element" attribute of the part (see WS-I BP 1.0, sec. 5.6.9). In
other words, no double level element with one element for the part
and one nested element for the "element" attribute. This is consistent with
mapping (2C), option-I, but inconsistent with (2C),
option-II.
For what concerns
the case of two parts with same "element" attribute value, that does not
happen in the case of SOAP binding with document style, since the message can
only have one part. We don't know, of course, about other bindings, but I
would not be surprised if they followed the same rule, since it makes sense to
be talking about a single document being sent over the
wire.
Ugo
-----Original Message-----
From: Alex
Yiu [mailto:alex.yiu@oracle.com]
Sent: Friday, May 07, 2004 12:52
AM
To: Ugo Corda
Cc: wsbpeltc; Alex Yiu
Subject:
Re: [wsbpel] Issue 103 - draft proposal