Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 152 - New Proposal to Vote

[Francisco Curbera <curbera@us.ibm.com>]

Hi Ron,

I think I understand the argument: WS-MD has an issue with how it reflects
(or doesn't reflect) spec version information in the epr. There are many
different ways to solve that problem; what is not fair, I think, is to ask
BPEL to patch over these problems and burden every BPEL engine with this
sirt of of ad-hoc patches. This in my view would be nothing but a (stealth)
dependency on an external spec, and one of a particularly unfortunate kind
since it results in nothing but clutter and inefficiency for every
compliant implementation.

Paco



                                                                                                                                        
                      Ron Ten-Hove                                                                                                      
                      <Ronald.Ten-Hove@        To:       Francisco Curbera/Watson/IBM@IBMUS                                             
                      Sun.COM>                 cc:       wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org                                                    
                                               Subject:  Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 152 - New Proposal to Vote                                
                      09/02/2004 04:49                                                                                                  
                      PM                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                        




Paco,

    I'm not sure if you've seen the main argument for having the
reference-scheme attribute (optional or not). Suppose we had a service
reference like the following:

    <ServiceRefType>
       <wsdl:port name="MyNotificationPort" ...
    </ServiceRefType>

The addressing schema to apply is less than clear. If my BPEL run-time
is clever, it might guess that WS-Message Delivery is implied, but it
will be at a loss to figure out which version of WS-MD to use. Also, it
is reasonable to assume that other specifications, trodding the same
ground as WS-MD, will take a similar approach, using wsdl 1.1 ports and
wsdl 2.0 endpoints.

    It is for these cases, where the QName of the element enclosed by
the <ServiceRefType> is not sufficient to resolve the endpoint reference
scheme in use, that the reference-scheme attribute is needed.

    If we adopt the proposed resolution to the issue 152 (below), how
are we to address the above problem?

Best regards,
-Ron

Francisco Curbera wrote:

>
>
>Following up on yesterday's discussion I am proposing an alternative
>resolution to issue 152. The aim, as it was discussed, is to eliminate
>unnecessary and redundant syntax:
>
>The "reference-scheme" attribute will be removed from the
>"bpws:service-ref" element wrapper. The schema definition for the wrapper
>will thus be changed to the following:
>
><xs:element name="service-ref" type= tns:ServiceRefType />
><xs:complexType name="ServiceRefType">
>    <xs:sequence>
>        <xs:any namespace="##other" processContents="lax" minOccurs="1"
>maxOccurs="1"/>
>    </xs:sequence>
></xs:complexType>
>
>
>Paco
>
>
>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
.