[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] usage of <partner> in BPEL?
I agree, the value for partners is only within a collaborative design scenario, and that is not what BPEL is made for. Especially since I think Partner is the wrong name anyway, it would be better to name this "Role". If a tool wants to annotate stuff like relationships and roles, it can so do with extensions. In fact making BPEL a planning and degning and tool-exchange language could be good, but it is clearly out of scope for this TC. Mit freundlichen Grüßen Bernd Eckenfels Chief Architect -- SEEBURGER AG - Edisonstr.1 , D-75015 Bretten, Germany Fax: +49 (0)7252 96-2400 - Phone: +49 (0)7252 96-1256 mailto:b.eckenfels@seeburger.de - http://www.seeburger.de -----Original Message----- From: Yaron Y. Goland [mailto:ygoland@bea.com] Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 7:53 PM To: Francisco Curbera Cc: Alex Yiu; wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: [wsbpel] usage of <partner> in BPEL? If a feature has at best speculative value then we should err on the side of cutting it. Therefore I think we should cut partners. Yaron Francisco Curbera wrote: > > > > > Hi Alex, > > I don't see partners as a deployment detail, even though they (like > everything else in a BPEL process) would need to be resolved at deployment > time. If anything, partner belongs to a higher level of abstraction than > partner links, since the intent was to capture business relationships > between partner links which are not reflected on how port types (nor > bindings) are factored. It certainly doesn't belong at the lower layer of > WSDL bindings. > > However, I think that it is a legitimate question whether partner adds > sufficient value to BPEL, particularly since there is no single way we can > point at for using that information. My own opinion would be to keep it > because it allows embedding relevant business constraints into the process > definition. > > Paco > > > > > > > Alex > Yiu > > > <alex.yiu@oracle. To: > wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org > > > com> cc: Alex Yiu > <alex.yiu@oracle.com> > > Subject: [wsbpel] usage > of <partner> in BPEL? > > 06/28/2004 > 08:19 > > > > PM > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > We define <partnerLink> and <partner> in BPEL. > The usage of <partnerLink> is very clear in BPEL. (e.g. invoke relies on > partnerLink). > > However, the usage of <partner> is not clear. > Is it more like a deployment related information? > Should it be a part of WSDL binding? > There are not other BPEL construct make uses of <partner> declaration. > > I have done a very informal poll to a number of vendors last week at > BPEL F2F in SF. > It seems to me that no particular vendor is actively making use of > <partner> > > Any further thoughts? > > Thanks! > > > Regards, > Alex Yiu > > > > > 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_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_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_workgroup.php.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]