I agree with Ugo except I would replace his example of reliability with session -- since it is the session that provides correlation not the reliability ;-)
________________________________
From: Ugo Corda [mailto:]
Sent: Thu 3/4/2004 9:25 AM
To: Monica J. Martin; Furniss, Peter
Cc:
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 96 - Opaque Correlation Sets
> >Furniss: Aren't there also cases where the BPEL process requires that
> >the communication be via a correlating protocol, but doesn't mind
which
> >one ? The requirement from the process is just that the communication
> >be "connection-oriented" at application level - the application is
not
> >going to use its own data values to discriminate, and isn't
interested
> >in what the underlying protocol uses, so long as the conversations
can
> >be distinguished. Which underlying protocol is actually used is
> >deferred to the binding.
> >
> >Or is this out in abstractional hyper-space ?
> >
> When we move outside of WSDL- and Schema-described XML
> messages, don't
> we lose some control? Doesn't this opacity bring risk with it? What
> other issues have we not identified (plus allowing use of proprietary
> specifications)?
I didn't read Peter's remark as requiring to "move outside of WSDL- and
Schema-described XML messages". I think his point includes cases where
the correlation protocol is a standard, WSDL- and XML-based WS
correlation protocol, but such that the BPEL language does not get to
directly manipulate it. The analogy would be the use of a standard WS
reliability protocol: even if it's there, the BPEL language itself does
not get to manipulate it.
Ugo
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/leave_workgroup.php.
