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 154 - Proposal For Vote

Can you give me an example where a BPEL engine implementer would get
confused about what the BPEL engine's responsibilities are based on
today's spec?

-----Original Message-----
From: Yaron Y. Goland [mailto:ygoland@bea.com] 
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 12:35 PM
To: Satish Thatte
Cc: wsbpeltc
Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue 154 - Proposal For Vote

I'm unclear how you can be so sure that an implementer will come to the 
same conclusion that as reached in the second paragraph of your mail. 
After all, there are a number of techniques we could have chosen to use 
at the abstract layer that would have dealt with some of the ambiguities

at the binding layer. But we wisely choose not to try and disambiguate 
things at the abstract layer because it would be a nasty mess. But that 
decision is not recorded anywhere in the spec. By explicitly stating 
that we will not try to disambiguate things at the abstract layer we 
create a clearer specification.

Put another way, what may be clear in your mind will most certainly not 
be clear in the minds of implementers who will not have your background 
in the spec.


Satish Thatte wrote:
> -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
> it is absolutely clear already that it is someone else's
> to "make things right" from the wire layer to the abstract layer.
> Satish
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yaron Y. Goland [mailto:ygoland@bea.com]
> 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
> spec authors. The fix is to make the implicit assumption explicit
> is what this proposal does. Note, however, that this proposal causes
> 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
> 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
> bindings, including ones defined in the WSDL standard itself, cannot
> 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
> 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
> of BPEL.
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster
> the OASIS TC), go to
> oup.php.

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