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] Re: Issue 34 - Proposal for vote


I still fail to understand how differences in the proposed addressing
standards (even in the unfortunate case where they did not converge)
would affect the BPEL language (other than in trivial aspects like
dependency on a particular namespace).

It seems to me that any differences between the specs would affect a
BPEL engine implementation and in particular how deployed processes are
handled, but I see no direct consequences at the BPEL language level. If
somebody has specific examples of how differences between WS-Addressing
and WS-MD syntaxes and concepts would surface at the BPEL language level
I would like to hear them.

Ugo

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Satish Thatte [mailto:satisht@microsoft.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 10:12 AM
> To: Martin Chapman; ygoland@bea.com; Ron Ten-Hove
> Cc: Francisco Curbera; wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Re: Issue 34 - Proposal for vote
> 
> 
> Notice I carefully said "abstraction relative to a standards 
> proposal" which *could* mean that we don't bind ourselves to 
> a fixed namespace, depending on emerging timelines.  I don't 
> think we will delay finishing BPEL just because we are 
> waiting for other standards work to be completed.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Chapman [mailto:martin.chapman@oracle.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 9:59 AM
> To: Satish Thatte; ygoland@bea.com; 'Ron Ten-Hove'
> Cc: 'Francisco Curbera'; wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Re: Issue 34 - Proposal for vote
> 
> No offence to W3C, but they wouldn't have anything usable for 
> at least 18 months. 
> Do we want to delay BPEL that long?
> 
> Martin.
> 
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Satish Thatte [mailto:satisht@microsoft.com]
> >Sent: 26 May 2004 15:59
> >To: ygoland@bea.com; Ron Ten-Hove
> >Cc: Francisco Curbera; wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
> >Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Re: Issue 34 - Proposal for vote
> >
> >
> >I agree with Yaron on this.  I suspect we will have to employ
> >some abstraction relative to a standards proposal because, 
> >unlike WSDL 2.0, we have no established prior art to take a 
> >dependency on -- at least I haven't seen anyone propose such 
> >an alternative dependency.
> >
> >________________________________
> >
> >From: Yaron Y. Goland [mailto:ygoland@bea.com]
> >Sent: Tue 5/25/2004 11:34 PM
> >To: Ron Ten-Hove
> >Cc: Francisco Curbera; wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
> >Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Re: Issue 34 - Proposal for vote
> >
> >
> >
> >Issue 34 is not, to the best of my knowledge, an issue upon
> >which there are a large number of dependencies. Furthermore, 
> >there is nothing inherent in the W3C process that would 
> >prohibit rapid progress on a spec with full adoption in a time 
> >span that is shorter than the expected lifespan of this group. 
> >Therefore I support delaying a vote on this issue while we see 
> >what happens in the W3C.
> >
> >        Yaron
> >
> >Ron Ten-Hove wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Paco,
> >>
> >>     I appreciate your response, but I respectfully have to
> >say that I
> >> still don't understand the value of delay. To address your points:
> >>
> >>     Let us suppose that we do delay, and that in two or
> >three months a
> >> W3C working group is created to develop WS-MD/WS-A into public
> >> specifications. Could we, the WS-BPEL TC, then take a 
> dependency on 
> >> this anticipated new specification? The answer is clearly 
> no, as the 
> >> WSDL 2.0 precedent you cited shows. Therefore waiting for such a 
> >> working group to form is rather pointless. Or had you in mind 
> >> something different from a dependency on such a specification?
> >>
> >>     Our TC has a large number of outstanding issues to be resolved,
> >> many of which "interact" with each other. The sooner we 
> resolve some 
> >> issues, the easier it will be to resolve the remaining ones. We do 
> >> have a limited amount of time available [1], and deliberate delays 
> >> will ultimately delay the completion of our work. (This TC 
> >formed over
> >> a year ago; my eldest child has grown over ten centimetres in that
> >> time span! :-)
> >>
> >> -Ron
> >>
> >> [1] Our charter states that "The final draft of the resultant
> >> specification will be due within 9 months of the first 
> >meeting", so we
> >> are already late.
> >>
> >> Francisco Curbera wrote:
> >>
> >>  >
> >>  >
> >>  >Ron,
> >>  >
> >>  >I was pointing out that things seem to be moving, after 
> the recent
> >> w3c  >submission. Waiting for standards is clearly not a 
> >requirements,
> >> as our  >position wrt WSDL 2.0 shows. on the other hand, if a
> >> submitted document  >were to become the seed of a working group we 
> >> would have a clear reference  >point to build upon. Since 
> a delay of 
> >> this decision comes at essentially no
> >>  >price, it seems unnecessary to rush to close it.
> >>  >
> >>  >Paco
> >>  >
> >>  >
> >>
> >>
> >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from
> >the roster
> >> of the OASIS TC), go to
> >> 
> >http://www.oasis->open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel/members/
leave_work
>> group.php.
>>
>>
>
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the
>roster of the OASIS TC), go to 
>http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel/members/lea
ve_workgroup.php.




To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of
the OASIS TC), go to
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel/members/leave_workgr
oup.php.



To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of
the OASIS TC), go to
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel/members/leave_workgr
oup.php.



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