The fundamental difference is that in the WSIF case the application can manipulate the "Header" abstract message described in issue 77 (if I understand your response correctly). In the case of BPEL, the language cannot currently manipulate that same information.
Ugo
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sanjiva Weerawarana [mailto:]
> Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 7:24 AM
> To: Ugo Corda; Ron Ten-Hove
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 77 - Under specified operation
> definitions
>
>
> Yes absolutely, but how does that affect BPEL? As far as BPEL is
> concerned, there's a single message which is sent/received- whether
> some of the stuff goes as headers, others by carrier pigeon and the
> rest via SOAP body is not anyone but the binding's business.
>
> Sanjiva.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ugo Corda" <>
> To: "Ron Ten-Hove" <>; "Sanjiva Weerawarana"
> <>
> Cc: <>
> Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 12:43 AM
> Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 77 - Under specified operation
> definitions
>
>
> I conclude from this that my WSIF example seems appropriate for this
> discussion. WSIF would be able to support a case like the one
> I gave for
> issue 77, and it would be able to map the "Header" abstract
> message to any
> particular binding I want to express (including, but not
> limited to, SOAP -
> in particular, bindings that don't even have the concept of a
> header)). Is
> that correct?
>
> Ugo
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ron Ten-Hove [mailto:]
> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 10:30 AM
> To: Sanjiva Weerawarana
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 77 - Under specified operation
> definitions
>
>
> WSIF is a set of bindings for Java and J2EE; it doesn't
> extend WSDL in any
> non-standard way that I am aware of. WSIF "understands" WSDL
> files that use
> those bindings. The message model is plain WSDL 1.1.
>
> -Ron
>
> Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
>
>
> I'm confused .. can you give an example of what you mean by
>
> "abstract messages that are not part of an abstract operation"?
>
> Maybe I haven't understood what you have in mind ..
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Sanjiva.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: "Ugo Corda" <mailto:>
> <>
>
> To: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <mailto:>
> <>; "Francisco Curbera"
>
> <mailto:> <>
>
> Cc: "Ron Ten-Hove" <mailto:>
> <>; "Satish Thatte"
>
> <mailto:> <>;
> <mailto:> <>;
> <mailto:> <>
>
> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 7:04 AM
>
> Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 77 - Under specified operation
> definitions
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> So are you saying that WSIF can only process a subset of all the legal
>
>
>
> (according to WSDL 1.1) WSDL files? (Please notice that I am
> not talking
>
> about adding any extension at the abstract level - just
> supporting what is
>
> allowed by WSDL 1.1)
>
>
>
> Ugo
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: Sanjiva Weerawarana [ mailto:]
>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 5:00 PM
>
> To: Ugo Corda; Francisco Curbera
>
> Cc: Ron Ten-Hove; Satish Thatte; ;
>
>
>
> Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 77 - Under specified operation
>
> definitions
>
>
>
>
>
> "Ugo Corda" <mailto:>
> <> writes:
>
>
>
> Just curious: does WSIF allow you to define abstract
>
>
>
> messages that are not
>
> part of an abstract operation?
>
>
>
> Ugo
>
>
>
> No it doesn't; WSIF only adds additional bindings to WSDL,
>
> not anything
>
> at the abstract level.
>
>
>
> Sanjiva.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from
> the roster of the
> OASIS TC), go to
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel/members/le
ave_workgroup.
php.
