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 11 - Proposal For Vote


Alas, any number of evils have been committed in my name. :)

Ugo Corda wrote:
>  > I want to make sure that the quality of the BPEL spec is maintained.
> 
> Hmmm, the BPEL 1.1 spec described everything only in terms of the
> expression language. Are you saying that it was of poor quality? (Before
> you answer, please keep in mind that you are listed as one of BPEL 1.1
> authors ;-).
> 
> Ugo
> 
>  > -----Original Message-----
>  > From: Yaron Y. Goland [mailto:ygoland@bea.com]
>  > Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 11:47 AM
>  > To: Ugo Corda
>  > Cc: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
>  > Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue 11 - Proposal For Vote
>  >
>  >
>  > Please see below
>  >
>  > Ugo Corda wrote:
>  > >  > The result is that you can swap out expression
>  > >  > languages at will in BPEL and none of the 103 specified
>  > >  > behaviors break.
>  > >
>  > > Of course it will break. Part of the 103 specified behavior is a
>  > > definition of the XPath 1.0 binding. If you replace XPath with
>  > > something else, those sections will not be valid any more
>  > and you'll
>  > > have to write new bindings descriptions.
>  > >
>  >
>  > As 103 explicitly points out there are two views of language
>  > bindings.
>  > There is how BPEL views languages and there is how languages
>  > view BPEL.
>  >
>  > All aspects of BPEL's view of languages is written using
>  > generic infoset
>  >   structures so that it is 100% independent of expression language.
>  >
>  > What is expression language specific, and by definition must
>  > be, is the
>  > binding of the expression language to BPEL.
>  >
>  > But by defining BPEL's view of the expression languages in
>  > infoset terms
>  > you can swap out which expression language you are using and
>  > none of the
>  > BPEL specified requirements or behaviors change.
>  >
>  > >  > I can find no reason why issue 11 should be held to a lesser  >
>  > > standard of portability.
>  > >
>  > > This is a typical red herring. As you have already stated, you are
>  > > against adding this functionality to BPEL, so you would
>  > vote against
>  > > the proposal even if it was expressed in infoset terms. I
>  > don't even
>  > > know why I am spending any time discussing this.
>  > >
>  >
>  > While it is true that I do not support the goals of issue 11
>  > I want to
>  > make sure that the quality of the BPEL spec is maintained. So if the
>  > group decides they do want to add issue 11 functionality then
>  > we should
>  > do it correctly and in a language neutral manner.
>  >
>  >               Yaron
>  >
>  > > Ugo
>  > >
>  > >  > -----Original Message-----
>  > >  > From: Yaron Y. Goland [mailto:ygoland@bea.com]
>  > >  > Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 5:25 PM
>  > >  > To: Ugo Corda
>  > >  > Cc: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
>  > >  > Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue 11 - Proposal For Vote
>  > >  >
>  > >  >
>  > >  > The reason why 103 doesn't define 14.3 in terms of the
>  > infoset is 
>  > > > because, as Alex and I explained in New York, we couldn't
>  >  > solve
>  > > all the  > world's problems in 103. As such we explicitly
>  > stated that
>  > > we  > expected
>  > >  > the translation of copy to infoset terms to happen as a
>  > >  > consequence of
>  > >  > issues 51 and 157 and therefore only made the minimum changes
>  > >  > necessary
>  > >  > to 14.3 to allow us to implement the areas that 103 addressed.
>  > >  >
>  > >  > However I think it is instructive to observe that 103 is
>  > written such
>  > >  > that BPEL's view of expression languages is always
>  > specified using
>  > >  > infoset terminology. The result is that you can swap out
>  > expression
>  > >  > languages at will in BPEL and none of the 103 specified
>  > >  > behaviors break.
>  > >  >
>  > >  > I can find no reason why issue 11 should be held to a lesser
>  > >  > standard of
>  > >  > portability.
>  > >  >
>  > >  >               Yaron
>  > >  >
>  > >  > Ugo Corda wrote:
>  > >  > > My point is that I find it strange that you are asking
>  > to avoid the
>  > >  > > use of an expression language terminology, when you are the
>  > >  > one using
>  > >  > > that same terminology in your latest approved proposal for
>  > >  > issue 103
>  > >  > > (as I quoted below).
>  > >  > >
>  > >  > > The idea that using a generic infoset approach makes BPEL
>  > >  > independent
>  > >  > > of expression languages is an illusion. What BPEL is
>  > >  > talking about in
>  > >  > > the "from" and "to" parts are expressions. So you
>  > still have to map
>  > >  > > from the chosen expression language to the infoset
>  > representation.
>  > >  > > That mapping, which is an integral part of the "from" and "to"
>  > >  > > semantics, can only be specified when you know which expression
>  > >  > > language you are dealing with. So I don't see how you can
>  > >  > claim that
>  > >  > > you are making BPEL independent of expression
>  > languages. What we
>  > >  > > should really say is that so far we know well how to use
>  > >  > XPath 1.0 in
>  > >  > > BPEL, but we can only hint at using alternative expression
>  > >  > languages
>  > >  > > like XQuery/XPath 2.0.
>  > >  > >
>  > >  > > I am perfectly happy with using an expression language
>  > terminology,
>  > >  > > but I would not have any particular problem considering an
>  > >  > alternative
>  > >  > > proposal based on infoset language (because, as I said
>  > >  > before, it does
>  > >  > > not change the substance of things in any important way).
>  > >  > If you want
>  > >  > > to offer a counterproposal that is based on infoset, I
>  > >  > might very well
>  > >  > > be willing to take it as a friendly amendment.
>  > >  > >
>  > >  > > Ugo
>  > >  > >
>  > >  > >  > -----Original Message-----
>  > >  > >  > From: Yaron Y. Goland [mailto:ygoland@bea.com]
>  > >  > >  > Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 6:29 PM
>  > >  > >  > To: Ugo Corda
>  > >  > >  > Cc: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
>  > >  > >  > Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue 11 - Proposal For Vote
>  > >  > >  >
>  > >  > >  >
>  > >  > >  > I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you suggesting
>  > >  > that  > a
>  > >  > > generic  > infoset approach which makes BPEL independent of
>  > >  > expression
>  > >  > >  > language is
>  > >  > >  > wrong or are you suggesting that you are being
>  > asked to carry
>  > >  > >  > a greater
>  > >  > >  > burden than others in the group have borne?
>  > >  > >  >
>  > >  > >  >       Yaron
>  > >  > >  >
>  > >  > >  > Ugo Corda wrote:
>  > >  > >  > > Well, let's look, for example, at the latest version of
>  > >  > >  > this section
>  > >  > >  > > 14.3 paragraph (from the resolution to issue 103):
>  > >  > >  > >
>  > >  > >  > > "The from-spec and to-spec MUST yield a node-set that
>  > >  > >  > contains exactly
>  > >  > >  > > one node. If the from-spec or to-spec selects
>  > zero nodes or
>  > >  > >  > more than
>  > >  > >  > > one node during execution, then the standard fault
>  > >  > >  > > bpws:selectionFailure MUST be thrown by a compliant
>  > >  > implementation".
>  > >  > >  > >
>  > >  > >  > > I don't see any generic infoset terminology in that
>  > >  > >  > paragraph either.
>  > >  > >  > >
>  > >  > >  > > Ugo
>  > >  > >  > >
>  > >  > >  > >  > -----Original Message-----
>  > >  > >  > >  > From: Yaron Y. Goland [mailto:ygoland@bea.com]
>  > >  > >  > >  > Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 1:53 PM
>  > >  > >  > >  > To: Ugo Corda
>  > >  > >  > >  > Cc: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
>  > >  > >  > >  > Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue 11 - Proposal For Vote
>  > >  > >  > >  >
>  > >  > >  > >  >
>  > >  > >  > >  > This proposal does not use infoset
>  > terminology. In fact, the
>  > >  > >  > > proposal  > looks to be XPATH specific. Defining issue 11
>  > >  > >  > in terms of
>  > >  > >  > > XPATH  > semantics would mean that the issue 11 features
>  > >  > >  > could change
>  > >  > >  > > in  > functionality based on which expression languages
>  > >  > >  > were used as
>  > >  > >  > > the  > source or destination. Minimally a proposal to
>  > >  > >  > resolve this  >
>  > >  > >  > > issue should  > be written using generic infoset
>  > >  > >  > terminology so that
>  > >  > >  > > issue 11  > behavior
>  > >  > >  > >  > will be consistent regardless of expression language.
>  > >  > >  > >  >
>  > >  > >  > >  >       Thanks,
>  > >  > >  > >  >
>  > >  > >  > >  >               Yaron
>  > >  > >  > >  >
>  > >  > >  > >  > Ugo Corda wrote:
>  > >  > >  > >  > > I have been working on a resolution of this issue
>  > >  > with a few TC
>  > >  > >  > >  > > members who are interested in a type of
>  > >  > resolution like the
>  > >  > >  > >  > one that
>  > >  > >  > >  > > Danny presented a few months ago. Please find our
>  > >  > >  > current proposal
>  > >  > >  > >  > > attached.
>  > >  > >  > >  > >
>  > >  > >  > >  > > Regards,
>  > >  > >  > >  > > Ugo
>  > >  > >  > >  > >
>  > >  > >  > >  > >
>  > >  > >  > >  > >
>  > >  > >  > >  > >
>  > >  > >  > >  >
>  > >  > >  >
>  > >  >
>  > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>  > >  > >  > >  > > --
>  > >  > >  > >  > >
>  > >  > >  > >  > >
>  > >  > >  > >  > >     Issue 11 - Proposal
>  > >  > >  > >  > >
>  > >  > >  > >  > >
>  > >  > >  > >  > >       1. Append
>  > >  > >  > >  > >
>  > >  > >  > >  > > Syntax:
>  > >  > >  > >  > > <bpel:assign>
>  > >  > >  > >  > >     <bpel:append>
>  > >  > >  > >  > >        <bpel:from ... />
>  > >  > >  > >  > >        <bpel:to ... />
>  > >  > >  > >  > >     </bpel:append>
>  > >  > >  > >  > > </bpel:assign>
>  > >  > >  > >  > >
>  > >  > >  > >  > > The from-spec within <append> yields a
>  > single node or a
>  > >  > >  > >  > node set. Note
>  > >  > >  > >  > > that the
>  > >  > >  > >  > > from-spec of <bpel:copy> still MUST yield
>  > ONLY one node.
>  > >  > >  > >  > The node set will be
>  > >  > >  > >  > > processed in document order (unless an
>  > >  > alternative order is
>  > >  > >  > >  > specified in the
>  > >  > >  > >  > > underlying query language). If the from-spec
>  > yields atomic
>  > >  > >  > >  > values (e.g.
>  > >  > >  > >  > > numbers), those atomic values can be
>  > converted to text
>  > >  > >  > >  > nodes, when needed. If
>  > >  > >  > >  > > the from-spec yields zero node,
>  > "bpel:selectionFailure"
>  > >  > >  > >  > fault MUST be thrown. If
>  > >  > >  > >  > > the from-spec yields an attribute node, then
>  > >  > >  > >  > "bpel:selectionFailure" fault MUST
>  > >  > >  > >  > > be thrown.
>  > >  > >  > >  > >
>  > >  > >  > >  > > {{ Background context note on XPath 1.0 and
>  > XSLT 1.0: the
>  > >  > >  > >  > selected set
>  > >  > >  > >  > > of nodes
>  > >  > >  > >  > > by XPath 1.0 in XSLT 1.0 is processed in
>  > document order.
>  > >  > >  > >  > Hence, it is feasible
>  > >  > >  > >  > > and natural to process the nodes selected by
>  > the from-spec
>  > >  > >  > >  > in the document order
>  > >  > >  > >  > > in <append> and other similar XML data
>  > operations. For
>  > >  > >  > >  > details, please see
>  > >  > >  > >  > > section 5.4 in [XSLT1.0] specification. }}
>  > >  > >  > >  > >
>  > >  > >  > >  > > The to-spec MUST yield one single element node as the
>  > >  > >  > >  > target element
>  > >  > >  > >  > > node.
>  > >  > >  > >  > > Otherwise, "bpel:selectionFailure" fault will be
>  > >  > generated.
>  > >  > >  > >  > The to-spec cannot
>  > >  > >  > >  > > refer to a partnerLink.  The node-set returned by the
>  > >  > >  > >  > from-spec will be appended
>  > >  > >  > >  > > orderly as child nodes to the target element node.
>  > >  > >  > >  > >
>  > >  > >  > >  > >
>  > >  > >  > >  > >       2. Insert
>  > >  > >  > >  > >
>  > >  > >  > >  > >
>  > >  > >  > >  > >         2.1 insertBefore
>  > >  > >  > >  > >
>  > >  > >  > >  > > Syntax:
>  > >  > >  > >  > > <bpel:assign>
>  > >  > >  > >  > >     <bpel:insertBefore>
>  > >  > >  > >  > >        <bpel:from ... />
>  > >  > >  > >  > >        <bpel:to ... />
>  > >  > >  > >  > >     </bpel:insertBefore>
>  > >  > >  > >  > > </bpel:assign>
>  > >  > >  > >  > >
>  > >  > >  > >  > > The restriction and semantics of from-spec under
>  > >  > >  > insertBefore is
>  > >  > >  > >  > > similar to
>  > >  > >  > >  > > those in the case of <bpel:append>.
>  > >  > >  > >  > >
>  > >  > >  > >  > > The to-spec under <insertBefore> MUST points to
>  > >  > one or more
>  > >  > >  > >  > nodes. If
>  > >  > >  > >  > > more than
>  > >  > >  > >  > > one nodes are returned, the first node will
>  > be used as the
>  > >  > >  > >  > reference node. The
>  > >  > >  > >  > > word "first" here means respect to the order
>  > of the node
>  > >  > >  > >  > set selected by
>  > >  > >  > >  > > to-spec, which is by default in document
>  > order, unless an
>  > >  > >  > >  > alternative order is
>  > >  > >  > >  > > specified in the underlying query language.
>  > >  > >  > >  > >
>  > >  > >  > >  > > The reference node MUST be an element node. The
>  > >  > parent of the
>  > >  > >  > >  > > reference node
>  > >  > >  > >  > > MUST be an element node also.  Otherwise,
>  > >  > >  > >  > "bpel:selectionFailure" fault will be
>  > >  > >  > >  > > generated. The to-spec cannot refer to a partnerLink.
>  > >  > >  > >  > >
>  > >  > >  > >  > > The node set generated by the from-spec will be
>  > >  > >  > inserted before the
>  > >  > >  > >  > > reference
>  > >  > >  > >  > > node in the document order (unless an
>  > alternative order is
>  > >  > >  > >  > specified in the
>  > >  > >  > >  > > underlying query language).
>  > >  > >  > >  > >
>  > >  > >  > >  > >
>  > >  > >  > >  > >         2.2 insertAfter
>  > >  > >  > >  > >
>  > >  > >  > >  > >
>  > >  > >  > >  > > Syntax:
>  > >  > >  > >  > > <bpel:assign>
>  > >  > >  > >  > >     <bpel:insertAfter>
>  > >  > >  > >  > >        <bpel:from ... />
>  > >  > >  > >  > >        <bpel:to ... />
>  > >  > >  > >  > >     </bpel:insertAfter>
>  > >  > >  > >  > > </bpel:assign>
>  > >  > >  > >  > >
>  > >  > >  > >  > > <insertAfter> is very similar to
>  > <insertBefore>. Except:
>  > >  > >  > >  > >
>  > >  > >  > >  > >     * If more than one nodes are returned by
>  > the to-spec,
>  > >  > >  > >  > the last node will be
>  > >  > >  > >  > >       used as the reference node. The word
>  > "last" here
>  > >  > >  > >  > means respect to the
>  > >  > >  > >  > >       order of the node set selected by
>  > to-spec, which is
>  > >  > >  > >  > by default in document
>  > >  > >  > >  > >       order, unless an alternative order is
>  > specified in
>  > >  > >  > >  > the underlying query
>  > >  > >  > >  > >       language.
>  > >  > >  > >  > >     * Instead of inserting nodes before the
>  > >  > reference node,
>  > >  > >  > >  > the nodes selected
>  > >  > >  > >  > >       by will be inserted after the
>  > reference node in the
>  > >  > >  > >  > document order (unless
>  > >  > >  > >  > >       an alternative order is specified in
>  > the underlying
>  > >  > >  > >  > query language).
>  > >  > >  > >  > >     * This operation can also be considered
>  > a macro of
>  > >  > >  > >  > conditional-switch +
>  > >  > >  > >  > >       (append or insertBefore).
>  > >  > >  > >  > >
>  > >  > >  > >  > >
>  > >  > >  > >  > >       3. Remove
>  > >  > >  > >  > >
>  > >  > >  > >  > > Syntax:
>  > >  > >  > >  > > <bpel:assign>
>  > >  > >  > >  > >     <bpel:remove>
>  > >  > >  > >  > >        <bpel:target ... />
>  > >  > >  > >  > >     </bpel:append>
>  > >  > >  > >  > > </bpel:assign>
>  > >  > >  > >  > >
>  > >  > >  > >  > > The syntax of "bpel:target" is similar to
>  > and a subset of
>  > >  > >  > >  > to-spec used
>  > >  > >  > >  > > in <copy>
>  > >  > >  > >  > > with the "partnerLink" attribute removed.
>  > Similarly, XPath
>  > >  > >  > >  > 1.0 is used as the
>  > >  > >  > >  > > default query language for <target>-spec.
>  > >  > >  > >  > >
>  > >  > >  > >  > > This <remove> operation remove nodes specified by the
>  > >  > >  > <target>-spec
>  > >  > >  > >  > > from their
>  > >  > >  > >  > > parent nodes. Nodes specified by <target>-spec MAY be
>  > >  > >  > >  > multiple. Nodes being
>  > >  > >  > >  > > removed can be: text nodes, attribute nodes and
>  > >  > element nodes.
>  > >  > >  > >  > >
>  > >  > >  > >  > > If the <target>-spec returns zero node, then
>  > >  > >  > >  > "bpel:selectionFailure"
>  > >  > >  > >  > > fault MUST
>  > >  > >  > >  > > be thrown.
>  > >  > >  > >  > >
>  > >  > >  > >  > >
>  > >  > >  > >  > >       Reference:
>  > >  > >  > >  > >
>  > >  > >  > >  > >     * [XSLT1.0] http://www.w3.org/TR/xslt
>  > >  > >  > >  > >
>  > >  > >  > >  > >
>  > >  > >  > >  > >
>  > >  > >  > >  > > [date: 2005-03-30]
>  > >  > >  > >  > >
>  > >  > >  > >  > >
>  > >  > >  > >  > >
>  > >  > >  > >  > >
>  > >  > >  > >  > >
>  > >  > >  > >  > >
>  > >  > >  > >  > >
>  > >  > >  > >  >
>  > >  > >  >
>  > >  >
>  > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>  > >  > >  > >  > > --
>  > >  > >  > >  > >
>  > >  > >  > >  > >
>  > >  > >  > >  >
>  > >  > >  >
>  > >  >
>  > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>  > >  > >  > >  > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>  > >  > wsbpel-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
>  > >  > >  > >  > > For additional commands, e-mail:
>  > >  > >  > wsbpel-help@lists.oasis-open.org
>  > >  > >  > >  >
>  > >  > >  > >  >
>  > >  > >  > >
>  > >  > >  >
>  > >  > >  >
>  > >  > >
>  > >  >
>  > >  >
>  > >
>  >
>  >
> 



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