Re: [wsbpel] Initial example violates SA00049?

[Alex Yiu <alex.yiu@oracle.com>]

Thomas,

Thanks for the reply.

I would double check with WS-I people as well. Most likely, I would open 
a clarificaiton issue.

Two more data points to consider:
- Does WS-I have a similar restriction? If not, we may have problems in 
taking WS-I complaint WSDL pattern?
- With <throw>, one can associate one faultName with more than one 
faultMessageType already.  Then, what does this restriction buy us?

Most likely, I would open issue to request a clarification on that front.

Thanks!

Regards,
Alex Yiu


Thomas Schulze wrote:

>Hi Alex,
>
>I think SA00049 (that's the current SA code; I changed the subject, too)
>and the current wording in the spec in paragraph 10.3 is very clear. It
>requires uniqueness of the QName "{ns of the portType}faultName" and NOT
>only uniqueness of the faultName inside a portType. We don't like to change
>this.
>
>In the initial example the two mentioned portTypes are declared in the same
>targetNamespace "http://manufacturing.org/wsdl/purchase"; and both declare
>the faultName "cannotCompleteOrder". This means the faultName QName
>
>      {http://manufacturing.org/wsdl/purchase}cannotCompleteOrder
>
>is NOT unique and thus, the initial example is not valid according to the
>current spec. That's why I propose to just fix the initial example.
>
>In case you'd like to change this rule in the spec, you should open a new
>issue.
>
>Best regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
>
>       Thomas Schulze
>
>
>
>                                                                           
>             Alex Yiu                                                      
>             <alex.yiu@oracle.                                             
>             com>                                                       To 
>                                       Thomas Schulze/Germany/IBM@IBMDE    
>             19.07.2006 19:25                                           cc 
>                                       wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org, Alex   
>                                       Yiu <alex.yiu@oracle.com>           
>                                                                   Subject 
>                                       Re: [wsbpel] Initial example        
>                                       violates SA00050?                   
>                                                                           
>                                                                           
>                                                                           
>                                                                           
>                                                                           
>                                                                           
>
>
>
>
>
>Hi Thomas and others,
>
>
>Quick gut feeling response.
>
>I don't think the example violates the fault naming requirement imposed by
>the spec.
>
>"This results in a fault identified in WS-BPEL by a QName formed by the
>target namespace of the corresponding portType and the fault name. To
>ensure uniqueness, this uniform naming mechanism MUST be followed  even
>though it does not match the WSDL’s fault-naming model ..."
>
>IMHO, it does NOT imply or enforce that the faultName QName must be unique
>by across all portTypes.
>
>However, I agree that the underlined sentence sounds a bit ambiguous to me.
>That is what is the uniqueness it is referring to???
>
>"This results in a fault identified in WS-BPEL by a QName formed by the
>target namespace of the corresponding portType and the fault name. To
>ensure consistent fault identification, this uniform naming mechanism MUST
>be followed  even though it does not match the WSDL’s fault-naming model
>..."
>
>**IF** the sentence did enforce that the faultName QName must be unique by
>across all portTypes, the semantic would be very strange. When mapped to
>OOP world, interfaces of the same package cannot throw the same Exception?
>
>Thomas ... if you disagree with my interpretation, we may need to open our
>last BPEL issue on that. (sorry to john and diane in advance)
>
>Thanks!
>
>
>Regards,
>Alex Yiu
>
>
>Thomas Schulze wrote:
>      The initial example in 5.1 introduces the WSDL fault
>      'cannotCompleteOrder'
>      two times, one for portType 'purchaseOrderPT' operation
>      'sendPurchaseOrder'
>      and one for portType 'shippingPT' operation 'requestShipping'. This
>      violates SA00050 (v26 of the SA List):
>
>      "In the case of a request-response invocation, the operation might
>      return a
>      WSDL fault message. This results in a fault identified in WS-BPEL by
>      a
>      QName formed by the target namespace of the corresponding portType
>      and the
>      fault name. To ensure uniqueness, this uniform naming mechanism MUST
>      be
>      followed even though it does not match the WSDL’s fault-naming
>      model."
>
>      Should this be fixed before the freeze? If yes, some adaptions to 5.6
>      are
>      necessary, too...
>
>      Best regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
>
>             Thomas Schulze
>  
>