[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]