RE: [wsbpel-implement] The uploaded loan approval example

From
"Fckenfels. Cernd"
Date
2004-03-16T18:09:49+00:00
ID
Thread
RE: [wsbpel-implement] The uploaded loan approval example
Hello 
Ron,

 

actually Issue #102 also mentions the inheritance of namespace prefix 
declaatios based on the enclosing eleemt's current namespace 
declaration.

 

So 
this might get addressed in that issue. However since that issue delas with 
different typos also, it might be wise to separate the two issues in - well - 
two issues.

 

Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Bernd 
Eckenfels
Chief Architect
--
SEEBURGER 
AG - Edisonstr.1 , D-75015 Bretten, Germany
Fax: +49 (0)7252 96-2400 - Phone: 
+49 (0)7252 96-1256
mailto: - http://www.seeburger.de 

  
-----Original Message-----
From: Ron Ten-Hove 
  [mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 6:03 
  PM
To: rkhalaf
Cc: Ugo Corda; Kristofer Agren; bpel 
  implementation
Subject: Re: [wsbpel-implement] The uploaded loan 
  approval example

Rania,

    In XPath 
  1.0 a function name is an (XML) qualified name (see here.) Thus the prefix 
  must be bound to a namespace URI. I think we are all in agreement 
  here.

    Should I open an issue, so that we can start 
  the machinery up to add a "prefixes" section at the beginning of the 
  spec?

-Ron

rkhalaf wrote: 
  Hi Ugo, 
    Kris, Ron, 

My impression is also that is  the prefix in the 
    xpath funcs is fixed to the actual "bpws" string. 

The spec says 
    that's associated to the namespace but  not that it must be defined 
    
"The extensions are defined in the standard BPEL4WS namespace "http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2003/03/business-process/". 
    The prefix "bpws:" is associated with this namespace." 

Also, the 
    examples in the spec do NOT define that prefix in the BPEL samples, although 
    they do define it in the associated WSDL files when defining propertyAliases 
    etc. 

It is not used in the schema to refer to the xpath functions or 
    fault names, but it is used there to qualify the BPEL elements (partner, 
    invoke, etc ) .. 

We should ask spec team for clarification on this 
    since  if it does need to be defined then the spec wording should 
    change. I wonder why they didn't tie it to that to start with. 

Rania 
    

Ron Ten-Hove wrote: 

    Ugo Corda wrote: 

      Yes, bpws should be defined as: 
        

xmlns:bpws="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2003/03/business-process/" 
        
(see Appendix D - XSD Schemas). 

Examples in the spec also 
        define it that way (see for example 16.1.2). 

I think the spec 
        uses "bpws" in many places as a shortcut for referring 
to the 
        namespace URI, without mentioning the fact that the "bpws" prefix 
is 
        arbitrary. 
  

Yes, such practice has become 
      commonplace in XML-based specs that use more than one such namespace. Such 
      specs usually contain a list of all the prefixes and namespaces used in 
      XML fragments thoughout the spec, to avoid confusion, or overly length XML 
      fragments. 

Should we suggest to our editing team that they should 
      include such a list at the beginning of the WS-BPEL spec? 

-Ron 
      

      Ugo 

  

        -----Original Message----- 
From: Kristofer 
          Agren [mailto:] 
          Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 3:35 PM 
To: 'bpel implementation' 
          
Cc: Ugo Corda 
Subject: RE: [wsbpel-implement] The uploaded 
          loan approval example 

Another question about the 
          validity of the loan approval BPEL; the loan approval example makes a 
          number of called to bpws:getVariableData, but the prefix "bpws" is not 
          mapped to any namespace. 
I have not found a definite answer to 
          this in the specification, where it is simply stated that the prefix 
          is "bpws" is associated with the BPEL namespace (section 9.1), but it 
          is not mentioned whether this is an assumption that applies to all 
          BPEL files (without having to do an 
xmlns:bpws="...") or just to 
          the examples in the specification. I would like to think that any 
          namespace prefix should be properly defined before used, even those 
          that are used to refer to extension functions? 

Kristofer 
          

-----Original Message----- 
From: Ugo Corda [mailto:] 
          Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 4:33 PM 
To: Kristofer Agren; bpel 
          implementation 
Subject: RE: [wsbpel-implement] The uploaded loan 
          approval example 

I agree. The Partner Link Type Schema 
          specifies elementFormDeafult="qualified", so all the local names must 
          be qualified. The syntax specified in BPEL sec. 7.1 is also quite 
          clear. 

Ugo 

   

          -----Original Message----- 
From: 
            Kristofer Agren [mailto:] 
            
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 12:50 PM 
To: 'bpel 
            implementation' 
Subject: [wsbpel-implement] The uploaded loan 
            approval example 

There appears to be an error in the 
            loanapproval.wsdl and 
loanapprovalBound.wsdl files; the 
            <portType> element under <plnk:role> is not in the 
            partner link namespace: 

 <plnk:role 
            name="assessor"> 
   <portType 
            name="asns:riskAssessmentPT"/> 
            
 </plnk:role>   
Maybe I am missing 
            something, but it should it not be: 

 <plnk:role 
            name="assessor"> 
   <plnk:portType 
            name="asns:riskAssessmentPT"/> 
            
 </plnk:role>   
Regards, 
            

Kristofer