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: wsbpel 2/8/2006: Potential Minor Gap Between Use or Disablement ofWS-I BP v1.1


Reference Section 3

We dictate static enforcement for those MEP that are not part of BP 
v1.1. But, we allow BP v1.1 configuration to be disabled. This creates a 
seeming gap. I am not saying we should necessarily allow these MEP but 
when not constrained by BP v1.1, this leaves the door open however. 
Should we not be specific in the case where WS-I BP v1.1 is used or 
regardless if the profile is enabled? I've proposed a minor editoral 
change assuming the latter.

Potential change from:
Finally a WS-BPEL processor MUST reject a WS-BPEL that refers to a 
portType that contain solicit-response or notification operations as 
defined in the WSDL 1.1 specification, this requirement MUST be 
statically enforced

Potential change to:
Regardless if the WS-I BP v1.1 profile configuration is enabled, a 
WS-BPEL processor MUST reject a WS-BPEL that refers to a portType that 
contain solicit-response or notification operations as defined in the 
WSDL 1.1 specification, this requirement MUST be statically enforced.

I believe our intent was to specify the allowed MEP (request-response 
and one-way MEP) regardless of whether BP v1.1 is enabled. Thanks.





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