As I
hinted in my previous note, I do not feel that strongly about point 4. It
would be fine with me if it is only a recommendation instead of a
requirement.
I would still be
very much in favor of our Use Cases WSDL artifacts to be compliant with BP
1.0.
Ugo
-----Original Message-----
From: Satish Thatte
[mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003
11:33 AM
To: Ugo Corda; Prasad Yendluri; Eckenfels.
Bernd
Cc: BPEL OASIS
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue 47 and
WS-I BP 1.0
I guess I am not
seeing why we need to take on this problem – RPC encoded or literal does not
matter to the BPEL process. If someone is policing WSDL 1.1 usage let
them enforce that. We can recommend BP 1.0 compliance for interop but if
BPEL is used in environments where BP 1.0 is not feasible or needed, what does
it mean for us to forbid the usage?
From: Ugo Corda
[mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003
11:28 AM
To: Satish
Thatte; Prasad Yendluri; Eckenfels. Bernd
Cc: BPEL OASIS
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue 47 and WS-I
BP 1.0
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
