[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue 154 - Proposal For Vote
I agree with Paco. Why are we duplicating the work of WS-I? -----Original Message----- From: Francisco Curbera [mailto:curbera@us.ibm.com] Sent: Friday, January 14, 2005 8:32 AM To: ygoland@bea.com Cc: wsbpeltc Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue 154 - Proposal For Vote I personally prefer to leave this type of WSDL or SOAP recommendations to the appropriate 'authorities' (WS-I and the like). In BPEL we need to assume that WSDL and SOAP processing have taken place and provide us with the right messages, properly processed. The use case mentioned here might make sense for example when a non-SOAP serialization is encountered. So my preference is to close w/o change. If (against this advice) the TC persists in addressing this issue in the BPEL spec, I would suggest that the last sentence ("implementations reject...") be changed to a recommendation to authors to ensure that the message definitions they use don't lead to processing difficulties under certain bindings. Based on BPEL's binding-independence aims this seems like a more reasonable piece of advice to me. Paco |---------+----------------------------> | | "Yaron Y. Goland"| | | <ygoland@bea.com>| | | | | | 01/13/2005 08:47 | | | PM | | | Please respond to| | | ygoland | |---------+----------------------------> >----------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------| | | | To: wsbpeltc <wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org> | | cc: | | Subject: [wsbpel] Issue 154 - Proposal For Vote | >----------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------| Issue 154 - doc/lit & multiple body parts Proposal: Put in an implementer's note on the problem of multi-part messages defined using complexTypes that are encoded using doc/lit Rationale: It is possible to create message definitions using doc/lit and complex types where it is impossible to decompose the messages into parts. But this problem doesn't exist with rpc/encoded, just with doc/lit. Since BPEL doesn't operate at that level we can't officially ban the practice. But we can at least warn people. Changes Required: Section 3 - Insert new paragraph after the paragraph that begins "While WS-BPEL attempts to provide as much compatibility with WSDL 1.1 as possible..." WS-BPEL only operates at the WSDL portType layer and so intentionally does not address WSDL binding issues. But there is one particular WSDL binding issue that implementers should be aware of. If a WSDL message is defined with multiple parts at least one of which is defined using a complex type and the resulting message is bound using doc/lit then it is at least theoretically possible to create a situation where it is impossible to determine for a message instance where one part of the message ends and another begins. WS-BPEL only requires that messages be broken into their required parts, it does not specify how, therefore this issue is out of scope for WS-BPEL. But in general it is recommended that implementations reject message definitions where this ambiguity exists. Note that WS-I's Basic Profile explicitly forbids WSDL messages constructed as described above. 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_workgr oup.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_workgr oup.php.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]