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 - 103 - Moving Forward

This approach seems sound.  Although without the WSDL based (i.e. message
type) BPEL variables I am not sure what 103 becomes, is it just the $
notation for element and type declared variables?
- Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: Yaron Y. Goland [mailto:ygoland@bea.com] 
Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 9:13 PM
To: wsbpeltc
Subject: [wsbpel] Issue - 103 - Moving Forward

Any time a proposal gets too big it can be difficult to make progress 
because too many issues get mixed up together. As such I propose that we 
break issue 103 into separate proposals, much as we did with issue 10.

The first proposal I think should go out for a vote would be a modified 
version of the current 103 proposal that removes the WSDL binding to 
XPATH variables, keeps the getVariableData function and doesn't change 
the current from-specs and to-specs.

This proposal would just include the binding of non-WSDL BPEL variables 
to XPATH variables along with defining the XPATH environment in which 
various BPEL expressions execute.

Then when we settle exactly how we would like to model WSDL variables we 
can decide the future of getVariableData(), how WSDL variables will 
appear in XPATH (including any special forms for doc/lit), if we would 
like to allow properties to be bound to variables, what from-spec and 
to-specs we want to use, etc.

I believe that by breaking this problem up into discrete issues we can 
make more rapid progress.

What does the group think?



To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the
OASIS TC), go to

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]