Re: [wsbpel] Initial example violates SA00049?

Hi Alex,

I think SA00049 (that's the current SA code; I changed the subject, too)
and the current wording in the spec in paragraph 10.3 is very clear. It
requires uniqueness of the QName "{ns of the portType}faultName" and NOT
only uniqueness of the faultName inside a portType. We don't like to change
this.

In the initial example the two mentioned portTypes are declared in the same
targetNamespace "http://manufacturing.org/wsdl/purchase" and both declare
the faultName "cannotCompleteOrder". This means the faultName QName

      {http://manufacturing.org/wsdl/purchase}cannotCompleteOrder

is NOT unique and thus, the initial example is not valid according to the
current spec. That's why I propose to just fix the initial example.

In case you'd like to change this rule in the spec, you should open a new
issue.

Best regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen,

       Thomas Schulze



                                                                           
             Alex Yiu                                                      
             <alex.yiu@oracle.                                             
             com>                                                       To 
                                       Thomas Schulze/Germany/IBM@IBMDE    
             19.07.2006 19:25                                           cc 
                                       , Alex   
                                       Yiu <>           
                                                                   Subject 
                                       Re: [wsbpel] Initial example        
                                       violates SA00050?                   
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           





Hi Thomas and others,


Quick gut feeling response.

I don't think the example violates the fault naming requirement imposed by
the spec.

"This results in a fault identified in WS-BPEL by a QName formed by the
target namespace of the corresponding portType and the fault name. To
ensure uniqueness, this uniform naming mechanism MUST be followed  even
though it does not match the WSDL’s fault-naming model ..."

IMHO, it does NOT imply or enforce that the faultName QName must be unique
by across all portTypes.

However, I agree that the underlined sentence sounds a bit ambiguous to me.
That is what is the uniqueness it is referring to???

"This results in a fault identified in WS-BPEL by a QName formed by the
target namespace of the corresponding portType and the fault name. To
ensure consistent fault identification, this uniform naming mechanism MUST
be followed  even though it does not match the WSDL’s fault-naming model
..."

**IF** the sentence did enforce that the faultName QName must be unique by
across all portTypes, the semantic would be very strange. When mapped to
OOP world, interfaces of the same package cannot throw the same Exception?

Thomas ... if you disagree with my interpretation, we may need to open our
last BPEL issue on that. (sorry to john and diane in advance)

Thanks!


Regards,
Alex Yiu


Thomas Schulze wrote:
      The initial example in 5.1 introduces the WSDL fault
      'cannotCompleteOrder'
      two times, one for portType 'purchaseOrderPT' operation
      'sendPurchaseOrder'
      and one for portType 'shippingPT' operation 'requestShipping'. This
      violates SA00050 (v26 of the SA List):

      "In the case of a request-response invocation, the operation might
      return a
      WSDL fault message. This results in a fault identified in WS-BPEL by
      a
      QName formed by the target namespace of the corresponding portType
      and the
      fault name. To ensure uniqueness, this uniform naming mechanism MUST
      be
      followed even though it does not match the WSDL’s fault-naming
      model."

      Should this be fixed before the freeze? If yes, some adaptions to 5.6
      are
      necessary, too...

      Best regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen,

             Thomas Schulze