[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue 255 - Proposal for vote
All, My apologies for jumping in so late into this discussion; I've been on a leave-of-absence. If memory serves, the wording in the issue 11 resolution that mentions (but does not mandate) dynamic style sheet changes was added at Alex's request. Given the parameter passing mechanism between the BPEL-domain and the XSLT global parameters, this seemed quite safe. (This is a far different situation than changing imported WSDL or XSD documents!) If Alex is happy with softening the wording, but not the intent (and I believe this is what his proposed changes accomplish), then I am quite happy to go along with these changes. -Ron Alex Yiu wrote: I'm not sure this last sentence is really necessary. The consequences of a style sheet not being consistent with the global parameter names declared in the doXslTransform invocation are well defined by the global parameter mechanism defined in XSLT 1.0. If the intent is to permit mismatches between the style sheet and the process, then this could be rephrased to be an imperative:The first XPath function parameter, which locates the style sheet, is intended to have the similar semantics as the location attribute of an <import> element. If this wasn't the point of the last sentence, perhaps we can omit it entirely?Normally the interface of the style sheet (i.e, its global parameters) will match the global parameters named in the bpws:doXslTransform function invocation that uses the style sheet. For flexibility the WS-BPEL implementation MUST NOT declare an error (either during static analysis or run-time) if the style sheet and the function invocation don't agree on the global parameter names. -Ron |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]