RE: [wsbpel-implement] Portability Definition -- informal

>There are some open questions 
here. Potentially, when we speak of observable message traffic, 
>we can 
mean "abstract" WSDL messages, or we can mean binding-level stuff, encoded for 

>shipment on the wire. It really depends on how much of the WSDL we want 
to pay attention to.
>By worrying about binding-level issues, we are 
treading on the ground covered  by 
>interoperability, but are 
staying closer to the "intuitive" definition of process portability, 

>where we'd like to be able to swap BPEL implementions without disturbing 
the rest of the 
>system. I think we touched on this overlap in the call 
today.

 

This is an 
interesting point. Since a BPEL process is defined independently of any binding, 
it seems that portability should also abstract from the particular bindings used 
in a deployed process. In principle the same process should behave the same 
regardless of the fact that one deployment binds to SOAP over HTTP and another 
one binds directly over JMS/MQSeries.

 

Or we could 
take an approach similar to WS-I, and say that at least for the first "version" 
of our portability concerns we assume that all bindings are done to SOAP over 
HTTP.

 

I am not sure 
which major problems we would encounter if we tried to pursue the former type of 
portability definition. Has anybody gone through that experimentation 
already?

 

Ugo