On the substance (Following are personal views)
If the question is,=20
"BPEL should work only with BP-compliant Web services."
then I think answer is NO. Are we really saying that end-users would not
be able to use BPEL to handle legacy interactions, perhaps using
proprietary communications (and thus perhaps proprietary wsdl bindings
to express them in bpel-accessible terms). And what of local
interactions that are represented to executable BPEL as web services
(i.e. as WSDL with a funny binding). Ok, those are binding questions,
but if there is an impact on the BPEL-visible aspects, would we want to
disallow it. It might be worth considering what, if anything, we seek to
disallow:
a) BPEL processes that can work with non-BP web services.
b) BPEL engines that support such processes
c) BPEL language constructs that could not be used with BP-compliant web
services (i.e. that require beyond-*basic*-profile facilities to be used
in a real case)
d) BPEL use-cases that require byeond-basic-profile facilities in their
worked-out example entries
e) BPEL use-casas that appear to require beyond-basic-profile
facilities, but which haven't been worked out in detail yet
the e) : d) distinction is that a business-derived use-case might
require BP 1.0-exceeding features (exotic MEPs, say). Is this disallowed
as a use-case candidate on that ground. Is it allowed in the use-case
catalogue, but marked as "deferred for future work" when it's clear the
wsdl can't be expressed in bp 1.0-compliant form ? Is it marked as
deferred only if the agreed features of BPEL CD-1 [1] are insufficient
to implement the use-case ?=20
Actually, I think "interoperability" as a BPEL goal needs very careful
thought. This is fundamentally a language for manipulating interoperable
services, not an interoperable protocol. The BPEL abstract to *define*
interoperable business protocols is enhanced by maximal capability, not
profiling. I suppose I ought to join in the implementation groups
discussions.
Peter
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ugo Corda [mailto:]
> Sent: 02 October 2003 04:39
> To: Francisco Curbera
> Cc: Eckenfels. Bernd; Prasad Yendluri; Satish Thatte; BPEL OASIS
> Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue 47 and WS-I BP 1.0
>=20
>=20
> Paco,
>=20
> This thread originated from today's meeting discussions. At
> the time the UC presentation was made, I brought up the idea=20
> of having only BP-compliant WSDL in any examples we provide.
>=20
> Later, during the discussion of Issue 47, the question was
> asked about what type of WSDL, 1.1 or 1.2, we should be=20
> looking at. The discussion naturally moved to what kind of=20
> WSDL 1.1 we are talking about, and the idea was bounced=20
> around about stating that BPEL should work only with=20
> BP-compliant Web services. That is the origin of this thread.
>=20
> I agree with you that the UC examples should be our major
> objective as far as BP compliance is concerned. Still there=20
> are other more subtle areas where consistency with BP relates=20
> directly to decisions we make regarding BPEL itself.=20
>=20
> For instance, we have been saying that interoperability is an
> important aspect of BPEL (it was just being discussed during=20
> the first meeting of the implementation subgroup), but that=20
> we should not worry too much about it and just say that BPEL=20
> deals with Web services and that Web services by definition=20
> are supposed to be interoperable. But how can we say that=20
> when we know too well of all the interoperability problems=20
> that have surfaced when only dealing with WSDL 1.1 (and SOAP=20
> 1.1)? So we need to further qualify our reliance on WSDL 1.1=20
> with the BP 1.0 constraints in order to guarantee (or at=20
> least enhance) BPEL interoperability.
>=20
> Another example of BP relevance to BPEL is the resolution of
> Issue 46. It would certainly be a bad idea if we said that=20
> the namespace of the part is something other than a null=20
> namespace (which WSDL 1.1 by itself would allow), when BP 1.0=20
> specifies that a null namespace should be associated with the=20
> corresponding part accessor element (see R2735 of BP 1.0).
>=20
> Ugo
>=20
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Francisco Curbera [mailto:]
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 6:49 PM
> > To: Ugo Corda
> > Cc: Eckenfels. Bernd; Prasad Yendluri; Satish Thatte; BPEL OASIS
> > Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue 47 and WS-I BP 1.0
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> > I am a little confused by this discussion.
> >=20
> > The only thing we should be concerned about is whether BPEL
> *prevents*
> > anyone from creating or using BP compliant services.
> Otherwise, the BP
> > only affects the WSDL and XSD definitions on which BPEL relies. We=20
> > should then respect the natural layering and leave BP compliance to=20
> > WSDL and XSD authors, and out of BPEL.
> >=20
> > OTOH, since the BP is a restriction on the usage of WSDL 1.1 and=20
> > XSD, and BPEL supports all applicable WSDL 1.1 (except for outbound
> > ops and here it
> > is consistent with the BP,) I don't believe BPEL prevents=20
> following BP
> > directives in any way. Maybe someone can provide an example.
> >=20
> > A different thing is whether our usage case examples should contain=20
> > WSDL and XSD definitions that are WS-I compliant. This is a good=20
> > idea.
> >=20
> > Paco
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> > =20
> > =20
> > "Ugo Corda" =20
> > =20
> > <UCorda@SeeBeyond To: =20
> > "Satish Thatte" <>, "Prasad Yendluri" =20
> > =20
> > .com> =20
> > <>, "Eckenfels. Bernd"=20
> > <> =20
> > cc: =20
> > "BPEL OASIS" <> =20
> > =20
> > 10/01/2003 02:28 Subject: RE:=20
> > [wsbpel] Issue 47 and WS-I BP 1.0 =20
> =20
> > PM =20
> > =20
> > =20
> > =20
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> > Right, RPC literal would be fine, but RPC encoded would be in=20
> > 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
> >=20
> > So for instance the RPC encoded services bound to SOAP/HTTP would be
> > in the "in scope but in violation" category?
> >=20
> >=20
> > 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
> >=20
> > Let me clarify point 4 (sorry, I mislabeled it as 3) in relation to=20
> > point 1.
> >=20
> > I think we should distinguish services that are not compliant with=20
> > BP 1.0 from those that are simply out of scope for BP 1.0.
> >=20
> > 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=20
> > with it.
> >=20
> > My point 4 is about services that are within the scope of BP 1.0 and
> > still do not comply with its requirements.
> >=20
> > 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=20
> > services only especially given the answer to 1 assuming it is
> > correct, and given
> > that there are many services today that are not compliant=20
> (e.g., RPC
> > encoded ones).
> >=20
> >=20
> > 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
> >=20
> > I see a few separate issues/questions connected to the relationship
> > of BP 1.0 and BPEL.
> >=20
> > 1- Would BP 1.0 be restricting BPEL to the point that some
> of BPEL's
> > functionality would not be available?
> >=20
> > I cannot think of any such restriction off the top of my head.
> >=20
> > 2- Would the fact that BP 1.0 only addresses the SOAP/HTTP binding=20
> > imply that also BPEL should be limited to that type of binding?
> >=20
> > I don't think that anybody would imply that.
> >=20
> > 3- Should a BPEL process be offered as a Web service that
> is BP 1.0
> > compliant?
> >=20
> > My answer would be yes.
> >=20
> > 3- Would it be fair to limit BPEL use to interacting with BP 1.0=20
> > compliant Web services only?
> >=20
> > My personal answer would be yes. But I am a member of WS-I, and I
> > understand other people might have different answers.
> >=20
> >=20
> > 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=20
> > please? Specifically, a BPEL usage pattern that would not work if=20
> > BP 1.0 is followed but would work if any WSDL 1.1 portType is=20
> > allowed. In other
> > words, is BP 1.0 a restriction on the WSDL artifacts we use=20
> > or potentially
> > on BPEL itself?
> >=20
> >=20
> > 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
> >=20
> > The sections 5.5 and 5.6 in the basic profile (
> > =20
> http://www.ws-i.org/Profiles/Basic/2003-08/BasicProfile-1.0a.h
tm) are =20
> 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.
>=20
> Prasad
>=20
> 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 =20
> directive in BP 1.0 that actually affects BPEL?
>=20
> Satish
>=20
