Most WS-I recommendations boil down to recommended best practices for
interoperability.
Hence IMO it would be good to follow those in the examples used with
the use cases..
-------- Original Message --------
Subject:
RE: [wsbpel] Issue 47 and WS-I BP 1.0
Date:
Wed, 1 Oct 2003 11:46:22 -0700
From:
Satish Thatte <>
To:
Ugo
Corda <>, Prasad Yendluri
<>, Eckenfels. Bernd
<>
CC:
BPEL OASIS <>
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
