[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: New Issue - Import in AP: basic executable completion
The AP basic completion rules were defined before BPEL mandatory <import>s were introduced. The question that is open now is how do they affect the basic executable completion rule that is used to syntactically validate an Abstract Process (from any profile). Currently, the basic exec completion is : A Basic Executable Completion of an Abstract Process is defined as an Executable Completion whose allowed syntactic transformations are limited to Opaque Token Replacement, plus the addition of an activity with createInstance="yes" if none are present in the Abstract Process (per clause [5] of section 13.1.3. Hiding Syntactic Elements). Where 1b1 is: • Opaque Token Replacement: Replacing every opaque token (including those omitted using the omission-shortcut) with a corresponding Executable token. For example, replacing an opaque activity with an <empty>. So, without changing anything and taking the usage of <import> means that one cannot (1) use wsdl/xsd/etc artifacts in the AP that have not been defined in an imported documents and (2) replace opaque tokens with artifacts not defined in these documents for the basic exec completion. The question is do we want to allow (1) and (2), or just (2), or niether? This affects section 13.1 and the two profiles (they have to decide whether their completions allow adding arbitrary imports, aside from the basic exec profile )
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]