[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Issue - R13 - BPEL partner link assignments
This issue has been added to the wsbpel issue list with a status of "received". The status will be changed to "open" if a motion to open the issue is proposed and that motion is approved by the TC. A motion could also be proposed to close it without further consideration. Otherwise it will remain as "received".
The issues list is posted as a Technical Committee document to the OASIS WSBPEL TC pages on a regular basis. The current edition, as a TC document, is the most recent version of the document entitled in the "Issues" folder of the WSBPEL TC document list - the next posting as a TC document will include this issue. The list editor's working copy, which will normally include an issue when it is announced, is available at this constant URL.
For the purpose of discussion, I'm considering a simple "router" process (R). The one operation exposed by this process includes 2 parts:
Based on content in the incoming request, the router chooses a process (process B) to "forward" the request to. Process B is expected to invoke an agreed upon operation on Process REQ, using the EPR information in the message.
There are 2 possible implementations:
Based on my reading of the 8/23 draft, both implementations are supported.
The questions for which I have no clear answer are:
Assuming it is, the spec in silent on IMA activities affecting the partner link for the purpose of assign activities, and the lifetime of the partner link value.
My expectation would be that once an IMA activity has completed, assigning from the partner link would yield the reply-to EPR.
Would this also require the partner link variants of the Assign activity to include a messageExchange attribute.
In either case, it would be useful for the spec to be specific about this point (and an example would be great).
The <sref:service-ref> element is not always exposed to WS-BPEL process definitions. For example, it is not exposed in an assignment from the endpoint reference of myRole of partnerLink-A to that of partnerRole of partnerLink-B. On the contrary, it is exposed in an wsbpel-specification-assignment from a messageType or element based variable through expression or from a literal <sref:service-ref>.
Section 8.4.3 states that the following is not a valid assignment: the selection result of the from-spec is a variable of a WSDL message type and that of the to-spec is not, or vice versa (parts of variables, selections of variable parts, or endpoint references cannot be assigned to/from variables of WSDL message types directly).
It is not clear if these to sections are contradicting.
If assignments to/from partner links is allowed (which is explicitly stated in section 8.4), what are the valid combinations?
To comment on this issue (including whether it should be accepted), please follow-up to this announcement on the firstname.lastname@example.org list (replying to this message should automatically send your message to that list), or ensure the subject line as you send it starts "Issue - R13 - [anything]" or is a reply to such a message. If you want to formally propose a resolution to an open issue, please start the subject line "Issue - R13 - Proposed resolution", without any Re: or similar.
To add a new issue, see the issues procedures document