Re: [wsbpel] Issue 82.1 - proposal to vote (directional vote)

[Alex Yiu <alex.yiu@oracle.com>]

Hi all,

I think we should still have distinct namespaces between Abstract and Executable BPEL, after most of 82.* got resolved. Major reasons are:

•  There are significant amount of syntax differences between an Abstract Process with opacityOmissionUsed="yes" and Exec Process. (I am talking about the Abstract base, not AP11 profile; essentially all compulsory element and attributes becomes optional.).
  
• On the other hand, there are moderate amount of syntax differences between an between an Abstract Process with opacityOmissionUsed="no" and Exec Process. (I already capture those differences in my previous email).
  
• I am worrying people uses copy-and-paste and mix-and-match between Abstract and Executable BPEL. (e.g. copying a fragment of empty <scope> from an Abstract BPEL into Exec BPEL). If we use the same namespace for both kinds of BPEL, it would be difficult for us to tell that users are doing this kind of mistakes. If we use different namespace, if people use an XML-aware tool to do such a copy-and-paste, we can detect that kind of mistakes more easily.
  
• With both AP11 and Template profiles, I tend to forseee people would create the Executable Process based on Abstract Process with sometool help, given with constraints specified in the profile. Even when people want to create an Executable BPEL based on Abstract BPEL with just emacs/notepad. People just need to following:
1. copy the BPEL file
2. make one-line of change: changing XMLNS declaration from Abstract to Exec BPEL.
   
3. add extra BPEL constructs for Execution Completion.
   
   Having two distinct namespace will allow us to validate the Exec BPEL code during step (3) by using XSD. Hence, having multiple NS gives us more tool to do BPEL validation, while collapsing Abstract and Executable do not yield any user benefits.
   

Thanks!


Regards,
Alex Yiu



Peter Furniss wrote:

I thought we said (or maybe it was just me) that we should revisit 24
once we had sorted out (in 82.*) just how much difference there was
between syntax e and syntax a. When issue 24 was resolved we were
anticipating a quite different scale of differences.  I had to drop out
of active involvement in 82 soon after that, I do think we should
consider rescinding 24 (sorry Diane)

Peter

  

-----Original Message-----
From: Rania Khalaf [mailto:rkhalaf@watson.ibm.com] 
Sent: 22 November 2005 16:28
To: Alex Yiu
Cc: wsbpeltc; Rania Khalaf; Danny van der Rijn; Ron Ten-Hove; 
'Monica J. Martin'
Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue 82.1 - proposal to vote (directional vote)


Hi guys,

If we agree about the schema of abstract will only add the 
opaque tokens 
then I don't see any motivation any more for 24's resolution .

Is it really worth all the pain of xsd:redefine and managing three 
schemas instead of just saying in the text that you can only use 
abstract tokens in AP ?

regards,
Rania