[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 152 - Clarification of usage of "reference-scheme"attribute of "service-ref" element
I'd like to propose a 3rd option - remove reference-scheme all together. The definition of reference-scheme and how it should be used with various EPRs is ambiguous at best. I don't believe we can usefully reduce the ambiguity without also becoming a lot more specific than any of us want to in regards to EPRs. But EPR's ambiguity means that the reference-scheme's utility as a generic handle onto EPRs is questionable. Therefore why don't we just get rid of the reference-scheme attribute? If an EPR needs some kind of higher level disambiguator then let a URI be defined as an attribute on the EPR's root element by the EPR author themselves. Let's keep BPEL out of it. Just a thought, Yaron ws-bpel issues list editor wrote: > > > This issue has been added to the wsbpel issue list. The issues list is > posted as a Technical Committee document to the OASIS WSBPEL TC pages > <http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel> on a regular > basis. The current edition, as a TC document, is the most recent version > of the document entitled ** in the "Issues" folder of the WSBPEL TC > document list > <http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel/documents.php> - > the next posting as a TC document will include this issue. The list > editor's working copy, which will normally include an issue when it is > announced, is available at this constant URL > <http://www.choreology.com/external/WS_BPEL_issues_list.html>. > > > Issue - 152 - Clarification of usage of "reference-scheme" attribute > of "service-ref" element > > *Status:* open > *Categories:* Syntax and validation <#category_syntax_and_validation> > *Date added:* 27 Jul 2004 > *Submitter:* Alex Yiu <mailto:alex.yiu@oracle.com> > *Date submitted:* 26 July 2004 > *Description:* This is a follow-up issue for Issue 34, which we passed > to introduce a "bpws:service-ref" element wrapper to contain details of > the EPR used by partnerLink. There was some discussion on how to use the > "reference-scheme" attribute of the "bpws:service-ref" wrapper element. > > Here are some suggested usage: > > (A) Keep it required as mentioned in original proposal of Issue 34: > > The “bpws:service-ref” has a required attribute called > “reference-scheme” to denote the URI of the reference interpretation > scheme of service endpoint, which is the child element of > bpws:service-ref. Most likely, the URI of reference scheme will have the > same value for the namespace URI of the child element of > bpws:service-ref. But they are not necessarily the same. > > * When the BPEL container fails to interpret the combination of the > "reference-scheme" attribute and the content element OR just the > content element alone, a standard fault > "bpws:UnsupportedReference" must be thrown. > > (B) Make it optional: > > The “bpws:service-ref” has an optional attribute called > “reference-scheme” to to denote the URI of the reference interpretation > scheme of service endpoint, which is the child element of bpws:service-ref. > > Most likely, the URI of reference scheme and the namespace URI of the > child element of bpws:service-ref are not necessarily the same. > Typically, this optional attribute is used ONLY when the child element > of the “bpws:service-ref” is ambiguous by itself. The optional attribute > supplies further information to disambiguate the usage of the content. > > Example: different treatments of wsdl:service element > > * If that attribute is not specified, use the namespace URI of the > content element within the wrapper to determine the reference > scheme of service endpoint. > > * if the attribute is specified, use the URI as the reference scheme > of service endpoint and treat the content element within the > wrapper accordingly. > o When the "reference-scheme" attribute is specified, the URI > value is MOST LIKELY different from the namespace URI of the > content element for EPR. > * When the BPEL container fails to interpret the combination of the > "reference-scheme" attribute and the content element OR just the > content element alone, a standard fault > "bpws:UnsupportedReference" must be thrown. > > > *Submitter's proposal:* > > I personally prefer (B) over (A). > *Changes:* 27 Jul 2004 - new issue > > To comment on this issue, please follow-up to this announcement on the > wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org list (replying to this message should > automatically send your message to that list), or ensure the subject > line as you send it *starts* "Issue - 152 - [anything]" or is a reply to > such a message. If you want to formally propose a resolution, please > start the subject line "Issue - 152 - Proposed resolution", without any > Re: or similar. > > To add a new issue, see the issues procedures document (but the address > for new issue submission is the sender of this announcement). > > 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]