[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue 154 - Proposal For Vote
-1 I think this additional language adds no useful content to the specification. All it says is: WSDL has binding problems and they are WSDL's problems not ours. Since we only deal with abstract port types and abstract message types, it is absolutely clear already that it is someone else's responsibility to "make things right" from the wire layer to the abstract layer. Satish -----Original Message----- From: Yaron Y. Goland [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 12:47 PM To: wsbpeltc Subject: [wsbpel] Issue 154 - Proposal For Vote Issue 154 - doc/lit & multiple body parts Proposal: To put in language that makes explicit what is currently implicit in the BPEL spec, that it is the binding layer's job to decompose the physical message into the portType definition. Rationale: One of the more basic flaws in spec writing is to make implicit assumptions. By doing so spec implementers are always left in the dark because they may not share the same implicit assumptions as the spec authors. The fix is to make the implicit assumption explicit which is what this proposal does. Note, however, that this proposal causes no normative changes to BPEL's current behavior, it just makes what was implicit, explicit. 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..." BPEL assumes that the WSDL binding layer is able to decompose incoming messages into the parts specified by the WSDL message definition. However it is know that certain combinations of message definitions and bindings, including ones defined in the WSDL standard itself, cannot be decomposed in any standard way. For example, a multi-part WSDL message where one of the parts is a complexType and a doc/lit SOAP transport can create ambiguous situations. The BPEL specification assumes that these ambiguities will be dealt with at the binding layer, perhaps by forbidding ambiguous message definitions, and are therefore out of scope of BPEL. 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.