Re: [wsbpel] Issue 103 - Good Idea!

[Alex Yiu <alex.yiu@oracle.com>]

Hi, Satish, Dieter, Assaf and all others,

Satish, definitely agree with you.
I will follow it up with Assaf and others and come up with a consolidated and consenus proposal and present to the rest of the group.

To sum up, I believe most of sub-technical-issues of this $var syntax are nailed down.  The only major which is not 100% done yet is: whether and how we can ease migrating of XPath used in BPEL from WSDL 1.1 parts message to WSDL 2.0 element message. Hopefully, this sub-issue will be resolved within a week.

As Assaf suggested, any WSDL 2.0 expert please raise your hand. Your expertise will be highly appreciated. Meanwhile, I will try to consult some co-workers of mine working in WSDL 2.0.

Thanks for the patience! :-)



Regards,
Alex Yiu



Satish Thatte wrote:

I am having trouble keeping up with this fast moving discussion.  I am
hoping that you will reach an agreement and then educate the mere
mortals among us on what the consensus proposal is ..

Satish

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Assaf Arkin [mailto:arkin@intalio.com] 
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 7:59 PM
To: Alex Yiu
Cc: wsbpeltc; Satish Thatte; ygoland@bea.com
Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue 103 - Good Idea!


  

(4)
Assaf suggested:
In WSDL 2.0,
$variable/ns:element[/ns:subElement]
In WSDL 1.1,
$variable/partName/ns:element

I was wondering whether it make sense to add a WSDL QNAME 
(ns:wsdlMsgName) like the following for WSDL 1.1:

$variable/ns:wsdlMsgName/partName/...

then the syntax would be more symmetrically between WSDL 1.1 and 2.0
ns:wsdlMsgName => ns:element
partname => subElement

The BPEL code migration may be easier from WSDL 1.1 to 2.0
    

If anyone has a good handle on where WSDL 2.0 is heading with their 
message definition, would be great to throw some ideas around. Ideally 
if you have a WSDL 2.0 interface that's backward compatible with WSDL 
1.1, you could use the BPEL process with both 1.1 and 2.0 without
change.

Assaf