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: 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 

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]