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 )
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs in
OASIS
at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php