I am having trouble keeping up with this fast moving discussion. I am
hoping that you will reach an agreement and then educate the mere
mortals among us on what the consensus proposal is ..
Satish
-----Original Message-----
From: Assaf Arkin [mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 7:59 PM
To: Alex Yiu
Cc: wsbpeltc; Satish Thatte;
Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue 103 - Good Idea!
> (4)
> Assaf suggested:
> In WSDL 2.0,
> $variable/ns:element[/ns:subElement]
> In WSDL 1.1,
> $variable/partName/ns:element
>
> I was wondering whether it make sense to add a WSDL QNAME
> (ns:wsdlMsgName) like the following for WSDL 1.1:
>
> $variable/ns:wsdlMsgName/partName/...
>
> then the syntax would be more symmetrically between WSDL 1.1 and 2.0
> ns:wsdlMsgName => ns:element
> partname => subElement
>
> The BPEL code migration may be easier from WSDL 1.1 to 2.0
If anyone has a good handle on where WSDL 2.0 is heading with their
message definition, would be great to throw some ideas around. Ideally
if you have a WSDL 2.0 interface that's backward compatible with WSDL
1.1, you could use the BPEL process with both 1.1 and 2.0 without
change.
Assaf
