RE: [wsbpel] Issue 199: Message Variable Naming Scheme

+1

 

From: Satish Thatte [mailto:] 

Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005
6:39 PM

To: Alex Yiu; Yuzo Fujishima

Cc: ;
Yaron Y. Goland

Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue 199:
Message Variable Naming Scheme

 

I think
“.” is perfect.

 

From: Alex Yiu [mailto:] 

Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005
7:54 AM

To: Yuzo Fujishima

Cc: ;
Satish Thatte; Yaron Y. Goland; Alex Yiu

Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue 199:
Message Variable Naming Scheme

 

Hi Yuzo and others, 

Just want to supplement info that there is a well-defined character sets that
we can use within a NCNAME. 

http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml-names/#NT-NCName

It looks like "." may be a good choice. 

Regards,

Alex Yiu

 

Issue 199: Message Variable Naming Scheme

Status: received

Date added: 16 Mar 2005

Categories: Data
handling

Date submitted: 16 March 2005

Submitter: Yuzo Fujishima

Champion: Yuzo Fujishima <>

Document: Issue 103 resolution

Description: Since Issue 103 has
been resolved without defining concrete naming scheme for message variables, we
need a new issue to discuss it. 

The
BPEL issues list lists three candiates: 

A.
$variable.part B. $variable_part C. $variable-part 

Submitter's
proposal: I think candidate C is not viable because "-" will be
interpreted as the minus operator. 

Choose
candiate A and make it illegal to have "." in variable names.

Changes: 16 Mar 2005 - new issue