Yaron,
[A]
This is NOT an implementation issue.
But, this is a language semantics and specification issue.
I add a reply to explain this with an example later.
[B]
BTW, can someone show me an XSLT implementation that will actually
modify the source tree without generating a seperate result tree?
(Please read my quotation from XSLT spec: "The result tree is separate
from the source tree."). If that XSLT implementation does not
violate the spec, I don't know what implementation will violate the
spec. :-)
[C]
To clarify, I don't mind ADDING an optional "stylesheet" attribute to
the from-spec. I think that is a good feature, as long as current
<copy> functionalities are kept.
BTW, I am curious who voted to close Issue 48 without changes. :-)
If the group really likes the transform features, let us EITHER open a
new issue similar which is somewhat equivalent to Issue 48 OR re-group
the XSLT feature under Issue 11.
Thanks!
Regards,
Alex Yiu
Yaron Y. Goland wrote:
I don't see
any of Alex's issues as being show stoppers.
Yes, XSLT is a replace. So what? A dump implementation will be
expensive and a smart implementation will be cheap. What else is new?
As for the vote, the group agreed to keep assign and copy semantics, I
would argue that XSLT provides those copy semantics so I don't see this
action as violating the word or spirit of the motion.
Using XSLT would drastically simplify the specification, allow us to
avoid re-inventing a whole stack of wheels, provide all the
functionality we wanted from copy and resolve issue 11. Using XSLT
seems like a winner to me.
Yaron
Alex Yiu wrote:
Hi all,
Yuzo, thank you for the sample example also.
_*[A] Nature of XSLT*_
The same old reminder to people: XSLT and XQuery are used to _create
*NEW* documents or XML fragments based on an existing piece of XML
data_.
Quotation--1: from the Introduction of XSLT 1.0 Spec:
--------------------------------------
A transformation expressed in XSLT describes rules for _transforming a
source tree into a result tree_. The transformation is achieved by
associating patterns with templates. A pattern is matched against
elements in the source tree. A template is instantiated to _*create*
part of the result tree_. _The result tree is *separate* from the
source tree_. The structure of the result tree can be completely
different from the structure of the source tree. ...
...
_A template is *instantiated* for a particular source element_ to
_*create* part of the result tree_. A template can contain elements
that specify literal result element structure. A template can also
contain elements from the XSLT namespace that are _instructions for
*creating* result tree_ fragments. When a template is instantiated,
each instruction is executed and replaced by the result tree fragment
that it creates.
--------------------------------------
[Note: "replace" here does NOT mean replace the source-tree. It means:
replace the instructions in the template with execution result. Think
of any web-page-template engine. e.g.: ASP, JSP, PHP.]
Typically, an XSLT has a default "catch-all-else" copy rule similar to
below to do a copy any nodes from source tree to result tree without
any transformation:
-----------------------------
<xsl:template match="@*|node()">
<xsl:copy>
<xsl:apply-templates select="@*|node()"/>
</xsl:copy>
</xsl:template>
-----------------------------
Quotation--2: [ http://www.w3.org/TR/xslt#copying ]
-------------------------------
The xsl:copy element provides an easy way of _*copying* the current
node_. _Instantiating the xsl:copy element creates a copy of the
current node_.
-------------------------------
If the result tree was NOT a distinct copy from the source tree, the
above <xsl:copy> would not be needed. In fact, if the above
"catch-all-else" copy rule are _NOT used in XSLT_, most of nodes (if
not all) in the _source tree will NOT be present in / copied to the
result tree_.
I hope the above quotations are good enough to prove that XSLT creates
NEW documents but NOT replacing any existing docs. If not, we just
need to cross reference to our W3C rep in XPath, XSLT, and XQuery WG -
TRIO in W3C.
Furthermore, XSLT is a non-procedural language. If executation of XSLT
were allowed to modify any source or existing XML Document, its
semantics can be extremely difficult to be defined. E.g. Will rules in
XSLT be re-fired, if the source document got changed? (very hairy
business there. Will it result in infinite loop?)
In short, XSLT is used to create new documents. _When the base document
is large and delta is small, the runtime efficiencies of such an XSLT
will be inheritly low. _
_*[B] How to apply XSLT in BPEL *_
Yuzo's example illustrates one of the possible ways to interprete
Assaf's original suggestion to apply XSLT in BPEL [i.e. (1b) below].
*(1)* _Using XSLT to transform a variable or a variable part:_
*(1a)* Refering to a variable or a variable part as the source
document:
--------------------------------
<assign>
...
<transform variable="var1" part="part1"
stylesheet="http://foo.com/my.xslt" />
outputVariable="var2" outputPart="part1" />
...
</assign>
--------------------------------
Or alternatively using a syntax closer to existing <copy>:
--------------------------------
<assign>
...
<copy>
<from variable="var1" part="part1"
stylesheet="http://foo.com/my.xslt" />
<to variable="var2" part="part1" />
</copy>
...
</assign>
--------------------------------
*(1b)* Embedding XSLT into BPEL with variable bindings:
Examples would be very similar to what Yuzo has provided.
(1a) and (1b) are not that different. One allows multiple input
variables,
while the other allows one variable only. One uses embedded XSLT,
one refers
the XSLT by a URI.
_*(2)* Still using 100% of current <assign>/<copy> syntax._
E.g.:
---------------------------
<assign>
<copy>
<from>$var/p:abc/p:def</from>
<to>$var/p:ghi/p:def</to>
</copy>
</assign>
---------------------------
However, when one try to define its semantics of syntax, one may
reuse
fragments of definitions from XSLT (e.g. "xslt:copy",
"xslt:copy-of",
"xslt:value-of")
_*KEY POINTS to analysis about XSLT facilities:*_
* The biggest difference between (1) and (2) is: the granularity of
replacement:
==> _variable or msg-part *VS* any node within a variable or
a msg-part
_
* I would emphasize that the _replacement of any node is a big part
of
<assign>/<copy> logic in BPEL 1.1_. Since we passed
to keep
<assign>/<copy> functionalities, we MUST/SHOULD keep
this part of
functionality as well. And, not having the capabilities of a
smaller
granularity of replacement has a _BIG impact on efficiency of
<assign>_.
For example: in order to replace a small zip code field of a
large PO
documents (e.g. 100 line items), we would effectively copy all
those 100
line items. That is NOT an implementation-dependent issue. The
XSLT spec
clearly shows its intention (see the quotations above).
* And, leveraging XSLT can be _a totally orthogonal add-on feature
to the
current <assign>/<copy>_. For example: XSLT features
in (1a) and (1b) can
be _extended and blended with existing <copy> features_:
--------------------------------
<assign>
...
<copy>
<from>
_<transform>_
<!-- embedded XSLT code ...
similar to Yuzo's example -->
_<transform>_
</from>
<to> *$var2.part1/p:lineItem[10]* </to>
</copy>
...
</assign>
--------------------------------
--------------------------------
<assign>
...
<copy>
<from variable="var1" part="part1"
_stylesheet="http://foo.com/my.xslt"_ />
<to> *$var2.part1/p:lineItem[10]* </to>
</copy>
...
</assign>
--------------------------------
* The "xslt:copy", "xslt:copy-of", "xslt:value-of" are used to
_*append*_
the execution result of "xslt:*" into the current result tree,
which is
being created brand-new. It _has NO definition on how to do node
replacement_ for an existing doc tree. Regardless whether we go
(1a), (1b)
or (2), we still need to define a table very similar to the table
in my
previous Issue 157 email. E.g.:
Src\Dest
EII
AII/TII
EII with
Complex-Content
RE
F
EII with
Simple-Content
RE
RC
AII/TII
RC
RC
Because, we need to define the semantics on how to replace the
value
pointed by the to-spec withe result of the XSLT transformation.
E.g. there
should be a fault, if one tries to fill in a simple-typed
variable with an
element of complex content. (i.e. the Fault caseas denoted by
"F" above).
Even if somebody tries to cut the corner by removing the
capabilties to
replace a smaller granularity of variable tree, it will NOT make
the
definition simplier. Because, the copy/replacement behavior on
Attribute
(AII) and Text (TII - from simple-typed variable) are virtually
the same.
(See the table above)
In short, _attempt to leverage XSLT concept to simplify Issue
157_ is just
a _*"false hope of economy"*_. On the other hand, adding XSLT to
BPEL
(under Issue 48 or Issue 11) does have its merits in a sense.
* To define an XSLT to just do simple-type manipulation is just
awkard and
anti-ease-of-use. Think of about the case that one needs to
increase an
counter value. With current <copy>, it is straight forward
and easy:
<assign>
<copy> <from>$count + 1 </from>
<to> $count </to> </copy>
</assign>
Try to do that with an XSLT. ;-) ... Possible but clumsy.
* Currently, <assign>/<copy> and Issue 103 are
_data-model independent_.
That is, we have no bias to any expression language. If BPEL's
only
operation under <assign> has such a strong dependency on
XSLT1.0, the
BPEL's expression language independence would be destroyed. (If
BPEL spec
ever enforces any data model in future, we should enforce XPath
2.0 data
model, because of its schemaful nature, instead of
XPath1.0/XSLT1.0.)
[Side note: Between (1a) and (1b), I prefer (1a), because I am afraid
that we would go through another issue 103 exercise, even though we may
be able to reuse a number of definitions from Issue 103. ]
_*[C] Summary*_
Main goals for Issue 157:
* _to clarify the semantics of <copy>_
o The typical and trivial cases in the table <copy>
logic are quite
clear already. That's why there are more than 3 companies
coming up
with interpretation in those cases. All we need to clarify
those
corner cases (e.g. when a standard runtime fault would
happen).
* _NOT to re-define <copy>_ into a completely different
animal and causing
all sorts of un-resolvable backward compatibility problems.
o We have passed a binding resolution to keep
<assign>/<copy>. _If we
defined XSLT transform as the only operation under
<assign>_, that
is virtually getting rid of <copy>. I would argue
that is a _direct
violation to our binding resolution_ in the F2F in Palo
Alto.
* Let us focus finish the clarification of <copy> in Issue
157 and call it a
day. :-)
o I am happy to see a standardized XSLT transform construct
also, if
we want to _*add *XSLT stylesheet attribute on top of
from-spec_.
But, _let's put it into Issue 48 or Issue 11_.
Thank you for reading such a long email!
Regards,
Alex Yiu
Satish Thatte wrote:
Yuzo,
Thanks for the example. I will study it. It seems to me that you have
used XPath variable binding in the template, which assumes that our
current Xpath variable binding mechanism would carry over without
additional work. Is that your understanding?
Satish
________________________________
From: Yuzo Fujishima [mailto:fujishima@bc.jp.nec.com]
Sent: Sat 6/4/2005 8:11 AM
To: Satish Thatte; wsbpeltc
Cc: Assaf Arkin; Danny van der Rijn; Charlton Barreto
Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 157 - Proposal For Vote
I don't quite see what are the problems.
I've written an example and attached the files used.
(Apply assign.xsl to var1.xml. Then you'll get newVar1.xml.)
Suppose we want to assign from var2 and var3 to var1.
In that case, we write something similar to assign.xsl (excluding the
variable binding part) within an assign activity.
Perhaps we should rename the activity to "transform".
The activity should look like below:
<transform variable="var1">
<xsl:stylesheet version="1.0"
xmlns:xsl="http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform">
<xsl:template match="orderNumber">
<xsl:element name="orderNumber">
<xsl:value-of
select="$var2/purchaseOrder/orderNumber"/>
</xsl:element>
</xsl:template>
<xsl:template match="billingAddress">
<xsl:element name="billingAddress">
<xsl:copy-of select="$var3/customers/customer[
@id=$var2/purchaseOrder/buyerId]/address/*"/>
</xsl:element>
</xsl:template>
<xsl:template match="@*|node()">
<xsl:copy>
<xsl:apply-templates select="@*|node()"/>
</xsl:copy>
</xsl:template>
</xsl:stylesheet>
</transform>
Those parts of var1 that need not be modified are copied
by <xsl:template match="@*|node()"> template. Pretty simple
and idiomatic.
I noticed that the use of XSLT may sometimes result in
more efficient (rather than inefficient) processing
because multiple assigns can be bunched together to form
one transformation.
How do you like above?
Yuzo Fujishima
NEC Corporation
Satish Thatte wrote:
Alex has pointed out various technical
difficulties he sees with using XSLT to resolve 157, privately to some
of us at the F2F. The principal one being that XSLT templates costruct
new XML documents rather than update existing ones. According to Alex,
doing anything else requires non-standard usage of XSLT. I am no XSLT
expert so I am looking for confirmation or otherwise of Alex's
position. If he is right then we are stuck with doing 157 as far as I
can see. I would much prefer not to add features to BPEL for any XML
data manipulation, but we have assignment/copy today and we have voted
not to remove them so the only other option is to find a way to use
some existing XML data manipulation spec as normative with the usual
extensibility. XPath is what we have used in copy but that seems to
require the sort of xII rules that the current 157 proposals specify.
If someone has a simpler way to resolve this I am all ears.
Satish
________________________________
From: Assaf Arkin [mailto:arkin@intalio.com]
Sent: Fri 6/3/2005 9:28 AM
To: Danny van der Rijn
Cc: Satish Thatte; Charlton Barreto; wsbpeltc
Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 157 - Proposal For Vote
I wouldn't rule out that we closed issue 48 because the scope was a bit
more generic, and from the issue list, apparently because 13 solves the
problem. So given issue 13 you can incorporate XSLT into BPEL as a
proprietary extension.
The problem we're facing is how to handle simple assignments as a
normalized part of the spec, which 48/13 do not cover. I, for one, am
not interested in re-inventing the wheel, so in this particular context
I have no problem revisiting issue 48 or resolving this as part of
issue
157, whichever is more convenient.
Assaf
Danny van der Rijn wrote:
What you're proposing, Satish, sounds
like Issue 48, which was
rejected in April of 2004. I'd be happy to revisit it, but I'm not
sure how others feel.
Danny
Satish Thatte wrote:
Wonderful. I didn't see this mail
before sending mine.
+1
________________________________
From: Charlton Barreto [mailto:cbarreto@adobe.com]
Sent: Thu 6/2/2005 9:29 AM
To: Assaf Arkin
Cc: wsbpeltc
Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 157 - Proposal For Vote
I second this proposal. I feel that we should delegate the problem
scoped by issue 157 by leveraging another spec which is actually
focussed on it, rather than attempting to invest the considerable
amount of time and energy necessary to address it in BPEL.
On 01/06/2005, at 16:08, Assaf Arkin wrote:
I want to propose an alternative way to solve issue 157, without
introducing significant complexity to the language.
The XSLT specification has been dealing with the exact same
problem of evaluating an expression and placing the results in a
target context. XSLT provides two separate mechanisms: copy-of and
value-of. I would propose using these two XSLT elements as a
normative part of the BPEL specification, instead of inventing yet
another copy mechanism.
http://www.w3.org/TR/xslt#copy-of
http://www.w3.org/TR/xslt#value-of
Assaf
||
<arkin.vcf>
Charlton Barreto
P 1.408.536.4496
cbarreto@adobe.com
www.adobe.com <http://www.adobe.com/>
logo.gif
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs
in OASIS
at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs in
OASIS
at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs in
OASIS
at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
|