[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]