A WSDL-based policy
approach would certainly be portable and interoperable (assuming something like
WS-Policy gets standardized). So the issue, as I understand from your previous
note, is more in terms of how clearly and in centralized fashion the policy
information is expressed, in such a way that it would simplify
portability and interoperability (not enable it, since it's already enabled in
the WSDL case).
But here again it's
an issue of how much of the BPEL code the analyst actually sees when deciding to
reuse it, etc.
Ugo
-----Original Message-----
From: Ron Ten-Hove
[mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003
1:10 PM
To: Ugo Corda
Cc:
Subject: Re: [wsbpel] policy annotations
and BPEL
Ugo Corda wrote:
I remember from
previous discussions that a common assumption is that most likely the
analyst will work neither at the WSDL level nor at the BPEL language level,
but at an abstract notation level (BPMN and similar tools). So whether the
high level tool translates policies down to the WSDL level or to
the BPEL level might not be that important for the
analyst.
I too remember
those discussions. Your point is well taken; doubtless a richer model of the
process and the surrounding services will be maintained by such tools, but in
a non-standard, non-portable way. I am concentrating on what bare BPEL / WSDL
can support, especially in terms of portability and interoperability (not much
point in having a standard otherwise, eh? :-)
Cheers,
-Ron
