i agree that if we're going to bother to fix the examples in the spec, we
should "go the distance" and include examples of both kinds.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Liu, Kevin" <>
To: "'Ugo Corda'" <>; <>
Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 12:06 PM
Subject: RE: FW: [wsbpel] Proposed resolution of Issue 39 - Inconsistent
syntax for query attribute values in spec examples
> Hi Ugo,
>
> You are right that BP 1.0 is only relevant for WSDL1.1 and is only focuses
on SOAP/HTTP binding. I also agree that BPEL should not have the same
limitation, and our examples should be applicable to other bindings.
>
> But my point is that soap/http binding is the mostly used binding
(especially with the endorsement of BP1.0), and we should be careful not to
showing a strong preferences for RPC style in our examples
>
> My questions in the original message are still valid. If we decide to
continue to use wsdl1.1, we may need to open an issue to provide some
examples which use wsdl:part defined in xsd elements.
>
> Best Regards,
> Kevin
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ugo Corda [mailto:]
> Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 4:22 PM
> To: Liu, Kevin;
> Subject: RE: FW: [wsbpel] Proposed resolution of Issue 39 - Inconsistent
syntax for query attribute values in spec examples
>
> Kevin,
>
> The WS-I BP 1.0 profile is very restricted in terms of WSDL bindings: only
SOAP over HTTP. On the other hand, it seems that the original BPEL authors
had in mind a broad range of possible bindings (see for example the end of
section 10, where it talks about a possible non-XML EDI binding of a port
type).
>
> It might be time to raise a new issue regarding the intended scope of WSDL
bindings addressed by the spec.
>
> Ugo
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Liu, Kevin [mailto:]
> > Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 3:44 PM
> > To: 'Glenn Mi'; Ugo Corda; ''
> > Cc: ''
> > Subject: RE: FW: [wsbpel] Proposed resolution of Issue 39 -
> > Inconsistent
> > syntax for query attribute values in spec examples
> >
> >
> >
> > Glenn made a good point - the use of "type" vs "element"
> > attribute in wsdl:part may have significant impact on the
> > binding and the wired message.
> >
> > It reminds me that as a group, we may need to ask ourselves
> > the following questions sooner or later. Based on the answer,
> > we may need to tune up the WSDL examples used in the current draft.
> >
> > - Which version of WSDL do we want to use? WSDL1.1 or WSDL
> > 1.2 ( or I should say the deliverable of the w3c WSD working
> > group, it might be called WSDL 2.0 eventually)?
> > - Do we care about WS-I Basic Profile (BP) 1.0 (see [1])?
> > - Do we want to indicate a preference for RPC style in our examples?
> >
> > Since BPEL only uses the wsdl:portType definition and the
> > binding definition is typically not available, the last
> > question may seem irrelevant. But if we want to continue to
> > use wsdl1.1, we may need to consider being compliant with
> > WS-I BP1.0, then the wsdl:part definition does have
> > significant impact on what kind of bindings can be used and
> > how the wired message may look like. Basically, according to
> > BP1.0, when soap over http is concerned,
> >
> > - a wsdl:part which uses the @type attribute to reference a
> > schema type can only be used by a RPC style operation
> > - for RPC style operations, the wired message must have a
> > wrapper element which is the child of soap:body and has the
> > same name as the operation. Part accessors have the same name
> > as the corresponding wsdl:part
> >
> > - a wsdl:part which use the @element attribute to refer to a
> > global element can only be used by a Document style operation
> > - for Document style operations, in the wired message, the
> > child of soap:body must be the element referenced by the part
> > definition
> >
> > In most, if not all, of the WSDL examples used in the current
> > draft, wsdl:part uses @type attribute. According to BP1.0,
> > *THIS IMPLIES THAT RPC STYLE IS CHOSEN*, I suspect that is
> > the real intention of the authors. IMHO, as a process
> > definition language, BPEL should at least provide balanced
> > number of examples that can be used by document style.
> >
> > If wsdl1.2 is to be used, of course the examples need to be
> > changed, but it will be a different story. Though I am in
> > favor to use a standard version of WSDL, I am not sure if
> > it's practical for us to use wsdl1.2 given that we have a
> > very aggressive schedule and wsdl1.2 is still under heavy
> > construction.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Kevin
> >
> > [1]
> > http://www.ws-i.org/Profiles/Basic/2003-06/BasicProfile-1.0-Bd
> > AD.html (section 5.3.1 is most relevant)
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:
>
>
