Bernd,
I agree with this
position. Just a couple of clarifications.
>we would need to
provide a web service which is non BP compliant.
This should be
restated as: "we would need to provide a web service port which is non BP
compliant".
Also, we are talking
about BP1.0, not BP1.1 (whose draft is not even public
yet).
As a last comment, I
would also require that all our use cases examples are BP1.0 compliant, unless
there is some very good reason for introducing a non-compliant one
(i.e. it makes a particular point that could not be made with a compliant
example - e.g. it illustrates the use of bindings other than
SOAP/HTTP).
Ugo
-----Original Message-----
From: Eckenfels. Bernd
[mailto:]
Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2003
11:12 PM
To: BPEL OASIS
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue 47 and
WS-I BP 1.0
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
