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] Issue - 154 - doc/lit & multiple body parts


Kevin,
	I am concerned that there may be a misunderstanding about what BPEL has 
required in regards to WS-I. No BPEL implementation is ever required to 
be WS-I compliant. The language in section 3 is quite clear on that. 
Therefore we do have an issue because BPEL systems MAY choose either on 
a global or local basis to not be WS-I compliant in which case the 
ability to have multiple body parts with doc/lit introduces ambiguities 
that we must resolve.

		Yaron



Liu, Kevin wrote:

> 
> HI Yaron,
>  
> Actually the Basic Profile 1.0 has made quite a few requirements in this 
> regards.
>  
> At the DESCRIPTION level, BP1.0 ONLY allows wsdl:message with a 
> single wsdl:part to be bound to doc/lit binding, AND that part must be 
> defined as an xsd element (GED) (see section 5.3.1 for R2201 through 
> R2208). 
>  
> At the MESSAGE level, BP1.0 disallow any trailer after 
> soap;body.  Within soap:body only one child element (as defined by the 
> GED referenced by the corresponding wsdl:part) is allowed
>  
> When other mechanism such as attachment are used, a wsdl:message that 
> contains multiple wsdl: parts might still be bound to doc/lit, but only 
> one part can be serialized as soap body. 
>  
> Since we has already decided to be BP1.0 compliant,  I don't see this as 
> an issue.
>  
> Best Regards,
> Kevin
>  
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* ws-bpel issues list editor [mailto:peter.furniss@choreology.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, Jul 28, 2004 01:31 AM
> *To:* wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
> *Subject:* [wsbpel] Issue - 154 - doc/lit & multiple body parts
> 
> 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 - 154 - doc/lit & multiple body parts
> 
> *Status:* open
> *Categories:* Related standards <#category_related_standards>
> *Date added:* 28 Jul 2004
> *Submitter:* Yaron Y. Goland <mailto:ygoland@bea.com>
> *Date submitted:* 27 July 2004
> *Description:* In theory it is legal in WSDL to define a doc/lit 
> encoding where the body parts are complexTypes. Let us say there are two 
> body parts. The first body part is a complexType which defines a 
> sequence that ends in xs:any. In that case when a message arrives there 
> is no well defined way to separate the first and second body parts, the 
> situation is ambiguous.
> *Submitter's proposal:* One possible solution to this problem is to 
> state that if a doc/lit has multiple body parts then they MUST be 
> composable in an unambiguous manner. But defining that is going to be a 
> challenge given the.... um.... issues.... with XML Schema. So perhaps we 
> want a simpler solution.
> 
> WS-I addressed this issue in R2204 by requiring that all parts in a 
> doc/lit MUST be element definitions. However I am told that the most 
> common behavior previous to WS-I was to only allow doc/lit messages to 
> have a single body part which could be a complexType. I suspect we need 
> to support both of these scenarios. So why don't we just specify in the 
> spec that any doc/lit WSDL binding MUST either have a single body part 
> or if multiple body parts are used then all the parts MUST be element 
> definitions?
> *Changes:* 28 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 - 154 - [anything]" or is a reply to 
> such a message. If you want to formally propose a resolution, please 
> start the subject line "Issue - 154 - 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]