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] New Issue - <toPart>s and Anonymous WSDL Variables Clarification(PR2)



Hi Monica,

+1 to the bug fix and refinement of static analysis.

I would like to suggest some wordsmithing on the new sentence:

from:

[add sentence] [add new Static Analysis Requirement] At most one <toPart> exists for each part in the WSDL message definition. If a process includes more than one <toPart> for each part in the WSDL message definition, that process MUST be rejected by static analysis.[end sentence]

to:

[add sentence] [add new Static Analysis Requirement] At most one <toPart> exists for each part in the WSDL message definition. If a process makes use of a <toParts> element, which includes more than one <toPart> for a particular part in the WSDL message definition, that process MUST be rejected by static analysis.[end sentence]


Does it sound good?
Thanks!


Regards,
Alex Yiu


Monica J. Martin wrote:

Title: <toPart>s and Anonymous WSDL variables clarification (PR2)
Target: WS-BPEL v2.0 Specification PR2 Draft
Description:
In Section 10.3.1, the use of <toPart> and <fromPart> is described. However, conflicting information exists in <toPart> copy mechanics given the normative requirement included in SA00050. This may be a cut-paste error during construction of this section. In addition, it is inferred that only one <toPart> should exist for each part in the WSDL message definition and this should be explicit.  Both these should be addressed in the Public Review2 to ensure proper use of these capabilities.

Proposal:
Section 10.3.1:
Change from:
The <toPart> elements, as a group, act as the single virtual <assign>, with each <toPart> acting as a <copy>....[existing static analysis requirement SA00050] When <toParts> is present in an <invoke>, it is not required to have a <toPart> for every part in the WSDL message definition, nor is the order in which parts are specified relevant. Parts not explicitly represented by <toPart> elements would result in uninitialized parts in the target anonymous WSDL variable used by the <invoke> or <reply> activity.  Such processes with missing <toPart> elements MUST be rejected during static analysis.

Change to: ...The <toPart> elements, as a group, act as the single virtual <assign>, with each <toPart> acting as a <copy>. [add sentence] [add Static Analysis Requirement] At most one <toPart> exists for each part in the WSDL message definition. If a process includes more than one <toPart> for each part in the WSDL message definition, that process MUST be rejected by static analysis.[end sentence]...

[updated static analysis requirement SA00050] When <toParts> is present, it is required to have a <toPart> for every part in the WSDL message definition; the order in which parts are specified is irrelevant. Parts not explicitly represented by <toPart> elements would result in uninitialized parts in the target anonymous WSDL variable used by the <invoke> or <reply> activity. Such processes with missing <toPart> elements MUST be rejected during static analysis.

Appendix B
 1. Effect changes above as stated - Add one new static analysis requirement and correct SA00050.
 2. Renumber static analysis requirements or consider adding the new
    static analysis requirement at the end of the list to minimize changes required.

Notes:

  * This issue doesn't specifically reference the known but rare case
    when there could be multiple toPart from the same BPEL variable.
    An example would be if the process always assumes the ship-to and
    billing addresses are the same, the same address variable could be
    copied to both the ship-to and billing address parts of the
    anonymous PO message.
  * Renumbering of static analysis requirements may be laborious;
    perhaps another option could be used to enable their effective use
    in the specification and by users.

References:
Current draft for PR2:  http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/21575/wsbpel-specification_public_review_draft_2_diff.pdf Public Review

schema changes for PR2:
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/21724/xsd%20changes%20for%20second%20public%20review.zip

15 day announcement:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wsbpel/200701/msg00004.html









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