← Prev in month
← Prev in thread
Next in thread →
Next in month →
Issue 148 - Proposal For Vote
148 - Explicitly state that solicit/response & notification aren't supported by BPEL Proposal: Make it a static error to submit a BPEL that includes a notification or solicit/response operation. Rationale: We don't support them, we just never bothered to actually state that. Section 3 From: While WS-BPEL attempts to provide as much compatibility with WSDL 1.1 as possible there are two areas where such compatibility has proven impossible. To: While WS-BPEL attempts to provide as much compatibility with WSDL 1.1 as possible there are three areas where such compatibility has proven impossible. From: The other area is in support for overloaded operation names in WSDL portTypes. To: Another area is in support for overloaded operation names in WSDL portTypes. Add the following after the sentence "This restriction was deemed appropriate as overloaded operations are rare, they are actually banned in the WS-I Basic Profile and supporting them was felt to introduce more complexity than benefit.": Finally a WS-BPEL processor MUST reject a WS-BPEL that refers to a portType that contain solicit-response or notification operations as defined in the WSDL 1.1 specification, this requirement MUST be statically enforced.
← Prev in month
← Prev in thread
Next in thread →
Next in month →