Hi Ron,
I think I understand the argument: WS-MD has an issue with how it reflects
(or doesn't reflect) spec version information in the epr. There are many
different ways to solve that problem; what is not fair, I think, is to ask
BPEL to patch over these problems and burden every BPEL engine with this
sirt of of ad-hoc patches. This in my view would be nothing but a (stealth)
dependency on an external spec, and one of a particularly unfortunate kind
since it results in nothing but clutter and inefficiency for every
compliant implementation.
Paco
Ron Ten-Hove
<Ronald.Ten-Hove@ To: Francisco Curbera/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
Sun.COM> cc:
Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 152 - New Proposal to Vote
09/02/2004 04:49
PM
Paco,
I'm not sure if you've seen the main argument for having the
reference-scheme attribute (optional or not). Suppose we had a service
reference like the following:
<ServiceRefType>
<wsdl:port name="MyNotificationPort" ...
</ServiceRefType>
The addressing schema to apply is less than clear. If my BPEL run-time
is clever, it might guess that WS-Message Delivery is implied, but it
will be at a loss to figure out which version of WS-MD to use. Also, it
is reasonable to assume that other specifications, trodding the same
ground as WS-MD, will take a similar approach, using wsdl 1.1 ports and
wsdl 2.0 endpoints.
It is for these cases, where the QName of the element enclosed by
the <ServiceRefType> is not sufficient to resolve the endpoint reference
scheme in use, that the reference-scheme attribute is needed.
If we adopt the proposed resolution to the issue 152 (below), how
are we to address the above problem?
Best regards,
-Ron
Francisco Curbera wrote:
