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: RE: [wsbpel] onEvent inconsistency between spec & schema?

Another issue is that the variable attribute should be optional for <onMessage> and <onEvent> in order to allow for the <fromPart> or empty messages. I believe that this is correct in the spec but incorrect in the schema snippet below.


I think we should track these as an issue as opposed to an action item. The main reason for wanting an issue is that the schema hasn’t been folded back into the spec yet so an action item doesn’t seem appropriate.


From: Ron Ten-Hove [mailto:Ronald.Ten-Hove@Sun.COM]
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 9:49 AM
To: ws-bpel tc
Subject: [wsbpel] onEvent inconsistency between spec & schema?



    This is just a query to see if an inconsistency we found is worth raising as an issue, or at least an editors' action item. The
<onEvent> pseudo-schema reads:

     <onEvent partnerLink="NCName" portType="QName"?
         operation="NCName" (messageType="QName" | element="QName")?
         messageExchange="NCName"? >*

but the real schema reads:

<complexType name="tOnEvent">
        <extension base="bpws:tOnMsgCommon">
                <element ref="bpws:scope"/>
            <attribute name="messageType" type="QName" use="required"/>
            <attribute name="variable" type="NCName" use="required"/>

    The problem areas are in bold blue. The pseudo-schema introduces a new attribute, named element, as an alternative to messageType, and makes them optional. The actual schema makes no mention of an "element" attribute, and the messageType attribute is required.

    I recall that we discussed (on the list) such a change, in relation to issue 295, but I don't recall this being part of Mark Ford's resolution to 295. Regardless, the spec and the schema don't agree. Should we simply fix the schema (an editors' action item), or do we need to open an issue to allow the TC to decide how to change the specification to match the schema?


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]