Hi, DK
I am agree with your proposal, generally speaking.
There are few things/questions I would to mention/ask:
(a) BPEL's current convention is using "yes" or "no" (bpws:tBoolean)
instead of "true" or "false" (xsd:boolean).
(b) Does this proposal mean ALL BPEL extension points
(element/attribute) MUST be always declared with this syntax? Otherwise,
the BPEL implementation should reject the process.
I presume the answer is yes by reading the implication of the text. It
would be nice to have explicit text on that.
(c) I presume the <extension> related syntax does not have its own
extension points. (e.g. location of extension definition). Again
explicit text on this would be appreciated.
Thanks!
Regards,
Alex Yiu
Dieter Koenig1 wrote:
>
>
>Proposed resolution for Issue 92:
>A new subelement of the process root element is used to declare extensions
>used in the process and specify whether they must be understood by the
>BPEL runtime.
>
>Rationale:
>This declaration provides information needed by the process deployer in
>order to decide whether a BPEL process containing language extensibility
>elements can be executed by the runtime.
>
>Add text to section 6.2. The Structure of a Business Process
>
> <process ...>
> ...
> <extensions>?
> <extension namespace="anyURI" mustUnderstand="true|false"/>+
> </extensions>
> ...
> </process>
>
>Add text to section 6.3. Language Extensibility
>
> The "extensions" subelement of the process is used to declare all
> namespaces of BPEL extension attributes/elements and indicate
> whether they carry runtime semantics that must be understood by
> the BPEL runtime.
>
> If the runtime does not support one or more of the extensions with
> mustUnderstand="true", then the process MUST NOT be deployed.
> Extensions declared with mustUnderstand="false" MAY be ignored by the
> runtime.
>
>Kind Regards
>DK
>
>
>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.
>
>
>
