RE: [wsbpel] Assumptions about WSDL 1.1 MEPs

From
Ugo Corda <>
Date
2004-12-13T21:31:26+00:00
ID
Thread
RE: [wsbpel] Assumptions about WSDL 1.1 MEPs
Title: Message

Jim,

This was discussed 
in Issue 118 and Issue 122, and resolved in Issue 122.

 

Ugo

  

  
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Clune 
  [mailto:] 
Sent: Monday, December 13, 2004 12:59 
  PM
To: 
Subject: [wsbpel] 
  Assumptions about WSDL 1.1 MEPs

  
I am wondering if the current BPEL draft is 
  making an incorrect assumption about WSDL 1.1 MEPs. The assumption that 
  the spec seems to make is that a WSDL operation with 
  Request/Response MEP will necessarily have the request and response in the 
  same network connection, regardless of the binding. My questions 
  are:

  
1. Is the spec making this assumption? (I think 
  it is.)

  
2. Is this assumption correct? (I think it is 
  not.)

  
 

  
My reading this assumption in to the spec comes 
  largely from Section 6.5. The current draft contains the following 
  paragraph, where I interpret "synchronous" to mean "in the same network 
  connection":

  
 

  
The example makes the implicit assumption that 
  the customer request can be processed in a reasonable amount of time, 
  justifying the requirement that the invoker wait for a synchronous response 
  (because this service is offered as a request-response operation). When that 
  assumption does not hold, the interaction with the customer is better modeled 
  as a pair of asynchronous message exchanges. In that case, the 
  "sendPurchaseOrder" operation is a one-way operation and the asynchronous 
  response is sent by invoking a second one-way operation on a customer 
  "callback" interface. In addition to changing the signature of 
  "sendPurchaseOrder" and defining a new portType to represent the customer 
  callback interface, two modifications need to be made in the preceding example 
  to support an asynchronous response to the customer. First, the partner link 
  type "purchasingLT" that represents the process-customer connection needs to 
  include a second role ("customer") listing the customer callback portType. 
  Second, the <reply> activity in the process needs to be replaced by an 
  <invoke> on the customer callback operation. 
  

  
 

  
I don't think you can correctly infer whether or 
  not a request/response pair will be on a single network connection based 
  solely on an abstract WSDL. If I'm either 
  misreading the spec or misunderstanding WSDL, could someone clarify this for me? If not, I'll submit this as an issue 
  to be resolved. Thanks.

  
 

  
Jim Clune
Parasoft 
  Corporation          email: 
  
101 E. 
  Huntington Ave.      voice: (626) 
  256-3680
Monrovia, CA.  
  91016           fax  : 
  (626) 256-6884