Hello
Ron,
I
completely agree with you, Postel's law is important here. I had the idea of
"only provide BP services, and be able to invoke non-conformant, if the
implementor wishes to support it". Problem is, that there might be services out
there which are not BP compliant, and in order to use them, one has to provide a
non.compliant call-back port. This means, we would need to provide a web service
which is non BP compliant.
So I
think we can and should require all implementations of BPEL engines to provide
and consume BP1.1 conformat services (in order to be called BPEL compliant), but
we should also allow the implementors to suport other bindings (and encodings
even for SOAP/HTTP).
Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Bernd
Eckenfels
Chief Architect
--
SEEBURGER
AG - Edisonstr.1 , D-75015 Bretten, Germany
Fax: +49 (0)7252 96-2400 - Phone:
+49 (0)7252 96-1256
mailto: - http://www.seeburger.de
-----Original Message-----
From: Ron Ten-Hove
[mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003
10:48 PM
To: Eckenfels. Bernd
Cc: BPEL
OASIS
Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue 47 and WS-I BP
1.0
Perhaps we should invoke Postel's
law, with respect to basic profile conformance. To promote interoperability,
we should be as permissive as possible when dealing with (other) web services,
but as conformant as possible when creating our own (BPEL engine provided) web
services.
I realize this falls mostly on
implementations to worry about, but the basic profile does contain a lot of
restrictions and clarifications for the "abstract" service model that may be
of interest.. The ban on operation overloading might be slightly simplifying,
for example.
Anyway, a quick scan of the BP didn't
reveal anything scary to me. It seems to me that WS-I BP 1.0 compliance will
be an implementation worry, but as a technology that will rely on
interoperation of our SOAP infrastructure, we ought to encourage (but not
mandate) BP compliance.
-Ron
Eckenfels. Bernd wrote:
Hello Ugo,
I
think it is not good to speak about violation if an implementation is able
to communicate with an larger number of systems.
Perhaps we should chnage this: "conformant BPEL engines must be able
to provide and consume Web Services according to BP 1.0a specification.
Engine should not provide Web Services with HTTP SOAP binding other than
BP1.0 conformant.
Actually I see the point of requiring BP1.0 support as a conformance
rule, but I dont see a point of restricting engines to that, even if it
applies.
Mit
freundlichen Grüßen
Bernd Eckenfels
Chief Architect
--
SEEBURGER AG - Edisonstr.1 , D-75015
Bretten, Germany
Fax: +49 (0)7252 96-2400 - Phone: +49 (0)7252
96-1256
mailto: -
http://www.seeburger.de
-----Original Message-----
From: Ugo Corda [mailto:]
Sent:
Wednesday, October 01, 2003 8:28 PM
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
