Hi Andrew,
Thank you for your comment.
Please see my reply in-line.
wrote:
> Hi Yuzo:
>
>
>>INCORRECT
>> <variable name="intTypeVar" type="xsd:int"/>
>> ...
>> <assign>
>> <copy>
>> <from>0</from> <!-- INCORRECT -->
>> <to variable="intTypeVar"/>
>> </copy>
>> </assign>
>
>
>>CORRECT
>> <variable name="intTypeVar" type="xsd:int"/>
>> ...
>> <assign>
>> <copy>
>> <from><p:intVal xsi:type="xsd:int">0</p:intVal></from>
>> <to variable="intTypeVar"/>
>> </copy>
>> </assign>
>
>
> Why is it so difficult for a BPEL parser to do the right
> thing in this example? The <from> has an attribute that
> specifies its "category" (i.e., variable). Absence impliesa literal. The compiler looks at the category and type of
> the <to>, and sees if <from> is type compatible (or
> can be coerced into a compatible type). Perhaps if the
> parser is not sure what to do, it generates a warning.
It is not difficulty but ambiguity that I intended to adress.
A reader of the current specification will probably be unable to
tell which of the above is correct (or both are acceptable).
I tried to define an unambiguous rule that is applicable to both
XML Schema type and element data.
As for knowing the type of the <to>:
It is generally difficult to tell the type because
the <to> clause can contain a query and an expression.
Yuzo Fujishima
NEC Corporation
>
> Autoboxing springs to mind when I look at these
> two examples.
>
> Cheers,
> Andrew
>
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
