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] usage of <partner> in BPEL?



Hi, all,

+1 to Yaron and Eckenfels viewpoints in general ...

More clarification questions to those who prefer keeping <partner>:

(1)
Yes, I understand <partner> is a higher level concept compared with individual WSDL binding per see.

Is <partner> just a logical grouping of <partnerLink> ?
Does it has some deployment constraint implication?

If <partner> is just a pure logical grouping of <partnerLink>, then what entity in the computing world exactly can a partner be mapped to? A single EPR value? A single authenticated identity?

It is just merely an intention documentation? Open to people's interpretation?

(2)
Paco wrote:

"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, could you elaborate a bit more about "embedding relevant business constraints"?

 

These unanswered questions make me tend to prefer removing <partner> from the spec.

Thanks!


Regards,
Alex Yiu



Eckenfels. Bernd wrote:
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.


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]