[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Question about section 6.2
Hi Ron, In the F2F of Costa Mesa, we basically removed the whole paragraph (which was added in Stuttgart F2F as an elaboration on how initializePartnerRole feature is being used). (Not just the second bullet, but the first bullet and the premable paragraph as well) The main reason that the paragraph is removed: After reading an email digged up by Mark Ford, the intent of original issue resolution (by Yaron) seems to indicate that WS-Addressing reply-to feature (if apply) would fall into the side of initializePartnerRole = "yes", while the elaboration text, which just got deleted, classifies that scenario as initializePartnerRole = "no". To avoid confusion, we decide remove those normative text. At the same time, during Costa Mesa F2F, I suggested to change default of initializePartnerRole. initializePartnerRole now does not have any default value. If that attribute is missing, it truely means "silent". In that case, the WS-BPEL processor *MAY* initialize the partnerRole of the partnerLink. My proposal was accepted as the F2F. (My intent was: the omission of this attribute is to allow WS-Processor to do whatever static analysis needed on BPEL logic + deployment info to decide whether and how the partnerLink's partnerRole is initialized ... to achieve better usability and the "DRY" principle that you have been advocating ... ) My question to the TC is: is this view of WS-Addressing accurate? Since the whole paragraph got removed, the WS-Addressing view issue becomes orthogonal for now. (However, I would be personally interested in discussing this topic in another email thread ...) Thanks! Regards, Alex Yiu Ron Ten-Hove wrote: I was puzzling over the following text in section 6.2: |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]