Re: [wsbpel] New issue: Partner Relationships

[Prasad Yendluri <pyendluri@webmethods.com>]

The new wording looks good to me. Thanks.

Monica J. Martin wrote:

>> yendluri: Hi Monica,
>>
>> There is no context for "ROLES" in WHETHER THESE ROLES ARE RELATED, 
>> as the text preceding it does not speak to the role aspect (there is 
>> no reference to role in there). It seems the text in background 
>> description you provided captures it pretty elegantly.
>
> mm1: Agreed.
>
>> How about changing it as follows?
>>
>> The partnerLink declarations specify the relationships that a
>>   WS-BPEL process will employ in its behavior. In order to utilize
>>   operations via a partnerLink, the binding and communication data,
>>   including endpoint references (EPR), for the partnerLink must be
>>   available (see also *Link*).  The relevant information about a
>>   partnerLink can be set as part of business process deployment. This
>>   is outside the scope of the WS-BPEL specification. WS-BPEL DOES NOT
>>   SPECIFY WHETHER THESE ROLES ARE RELATED, BY CALLBACK OR OTHERWISE
>>   (SUCH AS THE SEMANTIC RELEVANCE OF THEIR PAIRING).
>>    In addition any semantic relationship or pairing of partnerLinks, 
>> portTypes and EPRs is outside of the specification.
>>
>> This does not mention "callback" but, the significance of it is not 
>> clear to me. BPEL processes do make call-back <invoke>s on an 
>> operation in portType on a prtnerLink, as we have shown in the spec 
>> (and in some examples).
>
>
> mm1: Part of this text was changed during the review process.  I 
> understand your point and don't have much preference either way about 
> that part of the verbiage.
> How about:
>
>    The partnerLink declarations specify the relationships that a
>    WS-BPEL process will employ in its behavior. In order to utilize
>    operations via a partnerLink, the binding and communication data,
>    including endpoint references (EPR), for the partnerLink must be
>    available (see also *Link*).  The relevant information about a
>    partnerLink can be set as part of business process deployment. This
>    is outside the scope of the WS-BPEL specification. WS-BPEL DOES NOT
>    SPECIFY WHETHER ROLES, PARTNER LINKS, PORTTYPES AND EPRS ARE RELATED
>    (SUCH AS THE SEMANTIC RELEVANCE OF THEIR PAIRING).
>
>
>>> ========
>>> new issue: Partner Relationships
>>>
>>> Background: During the May 2006 F2F there was discussion surrounding 
>>> partner links, EPR, etc.  A question was raised and later clarified 
>>> that resulted in this editorial issue and proposed resolution to 
>>> further specify that the semantic relationship or pairing of 
>>> portTypes, EPR and partner links is outside of the specification.
>>>
>>> reference: Section 6.2
>>> Change from:
>>>
>>>    The partnerLink declarations specify the relationships that a
>>>    WS-BPEL process will employ in its behavior. In order to utilize
>>>    operations via a partnerLink, the binding and communication data,
>>>    including endpoint references (EPR), for the partnerLink must be
>>>    available (see also **Link**). The     relevant information about a
>>>    partnerLink can be set as part of business process deployment. This
>>>    is outside the scope of the WS-BPEL specification.
>>>
>>> Change to (changes in UPPER CASE):
>>>
>>>    The partnerLink declarations specify the relationships that a
>>>    WS-BPEL process will employ in its behavior. In order to utilize
>>>    operations via a partnerLink, the binding and communication data,
>>>    including endpoint references (EPR), for the partnerLink must be
>>>    available (see also *Link*).  The relevant information about a
>>>    partnerLink can be set as part of business process deployment. This
>>>    is outside the scope of the WS-BPEL specification. WS-BPEL DOES NOT
>>>    SPECIFY WHETHER THESE ROLES ARE RELATED, BY CALLBACK OR OTHERWISE
>>>    (SUCH AS THE SEMANTIC RELEVANCE OF THEIR PAIRING).
>>
>>