Mike Edwards wrote:
>
> Anish,
>
> 1) I think that the proposal needs to define the name and location of
> the file for a given BPEL implementation.
>
> See line 447 of Assembly spec.
>
Not sure which version of assembly spec you are refering to, but I
assume you mean:
"A component type file has the same name as the implementation file but
has the extension “.componentType”. The component type is defined by a
componentType element in the file. The location of the component type
file depends on the type of the component implementation: it is
described in the respective client and implementation model
specification for the implementation type."
Per that, we wouldn't have to define the name but would have to specify
the location.
> 2) The compatibility rules should really be defined by the Assembly spec.
>
> Line 438 mentions compatibility without giving it a precise meaning.
>
> I argue that the introspected information takes the form of a
> componentType element.
> "compatibility" means that the introspected componentType information
> must not conflict
> with the explicit componentType information - taken element by element,
> the information
> must either be the same - or one set of information must be adding to
> the information in the
> other set in such a way that a combined componentType is valid.
>
> This should be added to the Assembly spec.
>
I completely agree. Would you like to raise an issue in the Assembly TC?
But there are potentially additional compatibility rules that can be
introduced by C&I. The componentType can be extended by the C&I and
therefore whether introspected information when added to the side file
is valid is not can be C&I dependent.
-Anish
--
>
> Yours, Mike.
>
> Strategist - Emerging Technologies, SCA & SDO.
> Co Chair OASIS SCA Assembly TC.
> IBM Hursley Park, Mail Point 146, Winchester, SO21 2JN, Great Britain.
> Phone & FAX: +44-1962-818014 Mobile: +44-7802-467431
> Email:
>
>
> *Anish Karmarkar <>*
>
> 18/10/2007 06:57
>
>
> To
> OASIS BPEL <>
> cc
>
> Subject
> Re: [sca-bpel] Issue 2 - Does the spec allow a componentType side file?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Proposed resolution:
>
> In section 2, line 194 add --
> It is also possible to have a component type file that is associated
> with the BPEL component implementation. When such a component type file
> is present, as specified in [SCA-Assembly], it provides component type
> information in addition to what is found by introspection.
>
>
> Do we need to define compatibility between what is found by
> introspection and what is available in the side file?
>
> Comments?
>
> -Anish
> --
>
> Alex Yiu wrote:
> >
> > Issue entered:
> > http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BPEL-2
> >
> >
> >
> > Anish Karmarkar wrote:
> >> Title: Does the spec allow a componentType side file
> >>
> >> Target: BPEL C&I spec
> >>
> >> Description: The spec does not say whether a componentType side file
> >> is allowed. If it is allowed then it should override the default rules
> >> specified in the spec.
> >>
> >> Proposal:
> >> <none>
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> /
> /
>
> /Unless stated otherwise above:
> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
> 741598.
> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU/
>
>
>
>
>
>
