So for instance the RPC encoded services
bound to SOAP/HTTP would be in the “in scope but in violation”
category?
From: Ugo Corda [mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003
11:18 AM
To: Satish
Thatte; Prasad Yendluri; Eckenfels. Bernd
Cc: BPEL OASIS
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue 47 and
WS-I BP 1.0
Let me clarify point 4 (sorry, I
mislabeled it as 3) in relation to point 1.
I think we should distinguish
services that are not compliant with BP 1.0 from those that are simply out of
scope for BP 1.0.
If I have a Web service that is not
bound to SOAP/HTTP, then I would say it is out of scope for BP 1.0, so it's OK
for BPEL to interact with it.
My point 4 is about services that
are within the scope of BP 1.0 and still do not comply with its requirements.
Ugo
-----Original
Message-----
From: Satish
Thatte [mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003
11:09 AM
To: Ugo Corda; Prasad Yendluri
Cc: BPEL OASIS
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue 47 and
WS-I BP 1.0
I doubt that we can mandate BPEL to be
used with BP 1.0 compliant services only especially given the answer to 1
assuming it is correct, and given that there are many services today that are
not compliant (e.g., RPC encoded ones).
From: Ugo Corda [mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003
10:55 AM
To: Satish
Thatte; Prasad Yendluri
Cc: BPEL OASIS
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue 47 and
WS-I BP 1.0
I see a few separate
issues/questions connected to the relationship of BP 1.0 and BPEL.
1- Would BP 1.0 be restricting
BPEL to the point that some of BPEL's functionality would not be available?
I cannot think of any such
restriction off the top of my head.
2- Would the fact that BP 1.0 only
addresses the SOAP/HTTP binding imply that also BPEL should be limited to that
type of binding?
I don't think that anybody would
imply that.
3- Should a BPEL process be offered
as a Web service that is BP 1.0 compliant?
My answer would be yes.
3- Would it be fair to limit BPEL
use to interacting with BP 1.0 compliant Web services only?
My personal answer would be yes. But
I am a member of WS-I, and I understand other people might have different
answers.
Ugo
-----Original
Message-----
From: Satish
Thatte [mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003
10:39 AM
To: Prasad Yendluri
Cc: BPEL OASIS
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue 47 and
WS-I BP 1.0
For the benefit of the non-expert could
post a salient example please? Specifically, a BPEL usage pattern that
would not work if BP 1.0 is followed but would work if any WSDL 1.1 portType is
allowed. In other words, is BP 1.0 a restriction on the WSDL artifacts we
use or potentially on BPEL itself?
From: Prasad Yendluri [mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003
10:11 AM
To: Satish
Thatte
Cc: BPEL OASIS
Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue 47 and
WS-I BP 1.0
The sections 5.5 and 5.6
in the basic profile (http://www.ws-i.org/Profiles/Basic/2003-08/BasicProfile-1.0a.htm)
are devoted to binding aspects but, several major sections including section 4,
other sections of 5 address abstract aspects of WSDL, which is a pretty large
portion. All those are applicable BPEL IMO.
Prasad
Satish Thatte wrote:
Most of the BP 1.0 directives are binding
related. BP also forbids outbound operations which BPEL does not use.
Can someone identify a directive in BP 1.0 that actually affects BPEL?
Satish
