I agree with the analysis and the proposal
except that I don’t see the need for the optional role specification. When
would a process need to invoke itself? And in the rare cases when it does, the
binding of the portLinks to create the cycle could be done externally relative
to the process definition, could it not?
Satish
From: ws-bpel issues
list editor [mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 3:41 AM
To:
Subject: [wsbpel] Issue - 44 -
portType is duplicated on Invoke activity and partnerLinkType
This
issue has been added to the wsbpel issue list. 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 document with the title in the "Issues" folder of the WSBPEL
TC document list - the next posting 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.
Issue
- 44 - portType is duplicated on Invoke activity and partnerLinkType
Status: open
Date added: 5 Aug 2003
Submitter: Marin, Mike
Date submitted: 01 August 2003
Description: The Invoke activity
requires a partnerLink and a portType. However the partnerLink refers to a
partnerLinkType, which also includes the portType. Therefore the portType in
the Invoke is redundant.
A
partnerLinkType do refer to a maximum of two portTypes. Assuming that a process
does not invokes itself, then the Invoke refers to the partnerRole, not myRole,
so there is only one possible portType, for that Invoke. In the other hand, if
we assume the process can invoke itself, then it will be better to specify the
role in the Invoke activity instead of the portType, because role has process
semantics instead of the portType.
Submitter's Proposal: I propose
that portType on the Invoke activity be removed and instead an optional role be
included instead. When the role is specified, it must correspond to one of the
two roles defined in the partnerLink. If the role is not specified the
partnerRole in the partnerLink should be assumed.
Changes: 5 Aug 2003 - new issue
To
comment on this issue, please follow-up to this announcement on the
list (replying to this message should automatically
send your message to that list), or ensure the subject line as you send it starts "Issue - 44 - [anything]"
or is a reply to such a message.
To add a
new issue, see the issues procedures document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:
