Right, RPC literal
would be fine, but RPC encoded would be in violation.
-----Original Message-----
From: Satish Thatte
[mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003
11:23 AM
To: Ugo Corda; Prasad Yendluri; Eckenfels.
Bernd
Cc: BPEL OASIS
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue 47 and
WS-I BP 1.0
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
