RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 77 - Under specified operation definitions

Ron,

 

> Can we 
distinguish clearly between "proper" (architecturally sound) use of WSDL 1.1, 

> and legalistic 
(mis)interpretations of the same? If we can, then I suggest we concentrate 

> on the former, 
and leave the latter to be addressed elsewhere. Is this 
unreasonable?

 

My position is that 
a spec which is intended to promote interoperability should be 
explicit enough not to generate ambiguous interpretations. If it is not, the 
last thing we should do is to blame the users of the spec for interpreting it in 
a way that disagrees with ours.

 

> My memory, 
aided by a search through my archive of the message traffic for wsbpel, 

> has failed to 
recall this choice being made. Can you give me a pointer to where this 

> decision was 
made? (Perhaps I am unwittingly covering old ground in this 
discussion.)

 

The whole resolution 
of issue 72 was so painstakingly worded to allow for non-BP-compliant 
applications to be supported. It is the result of many discussions where people 
expressed strong opposition to forcing BPEL to only support BP-compliant 
applications.

 

Ugo

  
-----Original Message-----
From: Ron Ten-Hove 
  [mailto:]
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 
  3:24 PM
To: Ugo Corda
Cc: 
  
Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 77 - Under 
  specified operation definitions

Ugo,

Ugo Corda 
  wrote:

  
    
    
Ron,

    
 

    
The 
    fact remains that the example I mentioned under issue 77 is a 
    completely standard-compliant service (even though it is probably not one we 
    would use as a recommended usage pattern). In fact the existence 
    of such a case is explicitly called out in sec. 3.7 of the WSDL spec. I 
    agree with you that is should not have been allowed to start with, but 
    unfortunately it's out there now and we simply cannot say that it's 
    non-standard.
    Can we 
  distinguish clearly between "proper" (architecturally sound) use of WSDL 1.1, 
  and legalistic (mis)interpretations of the same? If we can, then I suggest we 
  concentrate on the former, and leave the latter to be addressed elsewhere. Is 
  this unreasonable?

  
    

    
 

    
In my view it's 
    just a matter of whether we want to support legacy applications or not. 
    Again, my understanding is that this TC decided we want to support legacy 
    cases even when they are deprecated by later specs like WS-I 
    BP.
    My memory, aided by a 
  search through my archive of the message traffic for wsbpel, has failed to 
  recall this choice being made. Can you give me a pointer to where this 
  decision was made? (Perhaps I am unwittingly covering old ground in this 
  discussion.)

Cheers,
-Ron