Folks,
This is a step forward, but it leaves
open some interesting questions.
As worded, the contributions in the
SCA Domain could contain multiple BPEL process artifacts which have the
same QName.
Following the SCA artifact resolution
process, more than one of those BPEL process artifacts could be within
the resolution
space defined by the SCA artifact resolution
mechanism.
The SCA Assembly specification says
the following in relation to multiple artifacts with the same QName existing
in the
artifact search space:
"If multiple dependent contributions
have exported definitions with conflicting qualified names, the
algorithm used to determine the qualified
name to use is implementation dependent.
Implementations of SCA MAY also raise
an error if there are conflicting names exported from
multiple contributions. [ASM12007]"
So, Assembly allows for the case but
also indicates that it can be treated as an error. The downside of
allowing multiple
artifacts with the same QName is that
the artifact used is runtime dependent and as a result, the application
behaviour is
indeterminate.
I would be in favour of outlawing multiple
BPEL processes with the same QName from existing in the
search space for SCA artifact resolution.
Note that this does not mean that multiple BPEL processes with the
same QName
can't exist in the Domain - only that
they cannot be exported from their contributions in such a way that makes
more than
one of them available for use by some
importing contribution.
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:
From:
Michael Rowley <>
To:
Anish Karmarkar <>,
OASIS BPEL <>
Date:
16/07/2009 19:05
Subject:
RE: [sca-bpel] Issue 49: BPEL process
QName is assumed to be unique
PROPOSAL:
Section 1.0 currently includes the following sentence: "[SBPEL1001]
The process attribute of the <implementation.bpel> element MUST be
the QName of an executable WS-BPEL process."
The following sentence should be added immediately after the sentence quoted
above:
"SCA's artifact resolution mechanism, defined in section 11.2 of the
SCA Assembly Specification, MUST resolve the specified QName to a single
WS-BPEL process."
Michael
-----Original Message-----
From: Anish Karmarkar [mailto:]
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 6:59 PM
To: OASIS BPEL
Subject: [sca-bpel] Issue 49: BPEL process QName is assumed to be unique
This is a new issue based on a PR comment, per my AI.
http://osoa.org/jira/browse/BPEL-49
PR 01 comment filed at:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bpel-comment/200906/msg00002.html
The BPEL specification does not say that the BPEL process QName is
unique. The SCA BPEL C&I spec assumes that it is, but does not state
this assumption in the spec.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
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
