Re: [wsbpel] Assumptions about WSDL 1.1 MEPs

Title: Message

Thanks, Ugo. Can an editor confirm that the 
paragraph below is slated for removal as part of resolution to Issue 
122?

 

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

  
----- Original Message ----- 

  
From: 
  Ugo Corda 
  

  
To: Jim Clune ;  
  

  
Sent: Monday, December 13, 2004 4:23 
  PM

  
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Assumptions about 
  WSDL 1.1 MEPs

  

  
Jim,

  
It looks like the 
  decision made in the 122 resolution has not been applied to the draft yet. 
  (Editors please confirm).

  
 

  
Regarding the 
  statement you quote below, it seems it should at least be substantially 
  reworked, if not eliminated. If we are giving advice about when to use one 
  construct (receive/reply) vs. the other (receive/invoke), I doubt that the 
  issue of whether "the customer request can be processed in a reasonable amount 
  of time" is relevant here. The issue seems to relate to the case where, for 
  example, an HTTP binding for the WSDL Request/Response MEP would suffer a 
  timeout condition if the receive and reply are too far apart in time. But that 
  would not be the case if other so-called asynchronous bindings were 
  used.

  
 

  
Ugo

  
    

    
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Clune 
    [mailto:] 
Sent: Monday, December 13, 2004 2:26 
    PM
To: Ugo Corda; 
Subject: 
    Re: [wsbpel] Assumptions about WSDL 1.1 MEPs

    
Thanks, Ugo. I failed to review the issues list 
    thoroughly. I'm afraid I'm still not clear on the resolution to Issue 122. 
    The resolution indicates that changes will be made removing references to 
    "synchronous" and "asynchronous" relating to reply, but the "In spec" 
    section is marked as "No change". Does this mean that the change has not 
    been made yet or that no change is required? In particular, is the paragraph 
    quoted below slated for removal, or has it intentionally been left in 
    the spec?

    
 

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

    
      
----- Original Message ----- 

      
From: 
      Ugo 
      Corda 

      
To: Jim Clune ;  
      

      
Sent: Monday, December 13, 2004 1:31 
      PM

      
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Assumptions 
      about WSDL 1.1 MEPs

      

      
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