Satish, Ugo,
Then I will ask one or both of you to please
pop in for a few minutes on the UC call Monday, explain your position and its
implications, so we can adapt. Ugo already confirmed attendance.
Thanks!
++Harvey
-----Original
Message-----
From: Satish Thatte
[mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003
2:46 PM
To: Ugo Corda; Prasad Yendluri;
Eckenfels. Bernd
Cc: BPEL OASIS
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue 47 and
WS-I BP 1.0
I completely agree that
our use cases should be BP 1.0 compliant – in fact I would vote to
mandate that.
From: Ugo Corda
[mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003
11:40 AM
To: Satish Thatte; Prasad
Yendluri; Eckenfels. Bernd
Cc: BPEL OASIS
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue 47 and
WS-I BP 1.0
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
