Great. I will apply the changes tonight when I get CVS access at home.
Best Regards,
Kevin
-----Original Message-----
From: Satish Thatte [mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, Oct 27, 2004 02:41 PM
To: Liu, Kevin; ; Alex Yiu
Cc: bpel spec
Subject: RE: [wsbpel-spec-edit] Friendly amendments to issue 89 proposal
I am fine with Yaron's text, except for the nit that queryLanguage is
used in WSDL for defining property aliases not properties :-)
OK to put in 6.2 for now. Later on we probably need to reorganize to
merge this type of stuff with section 3 but that is not something to
take on right now.
Satish
-----Original Message-----
From: Liu, Kevin [mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 12:03 PM
To: Satish Thatte; ; Alex Yiu
Cc: bpel spec
Subject: RE: [wsbpel-spec-edit] Friendly amendments to issue 89 proposal
OK, We need to move on with this.
First, let's see if we can agree on the location. Do we all agree that
section 6.2 is the right place given the change is applicable to both
abstract and executable process (note section 14 is only for executable
process)?
As for the text, personally I like Yaron's version better since it fits
into the context of section 6.2 and re-uses the "processor" term instead
of introduce another one. It also clarifies the case for WSDL.
Satish, do you agree that we can move on with Yaron's text as the base?
Best Regards,
Kevin
-----Original Message-----
From: Satish Thatte [mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, Oct 26, 2004 03:18 PM
To: ; Alex Yiu
Cc: Liu, Kevin; bpel spec
Subject: RE: [wsbpel-spec-edit] Friendly amendments to issue 89 proposal
The executable/abstract distinction is not relevant here. The only
point we are trying to make is that you MUST *statically* determine if
you can FULLY understand the process definition before you do anything
with it. In other words, the various language attributes have
"mustUnderstand" status.
-----Original Message-----
From: Yaron Y. Goland [mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 3:12 PM
To: Alex Yiu
Cc: Liu, Kevin; bpel spec; Satish Thatte
Subject: Re: [wsbpel-spec-edit] Friendly amendments to issue 89 proposal
When I wrote 89 the status of abstract processes was unclear so I stuck
to just addressing executable processes. Officially speaking nothing has
changed in the status of abstract processes but I believe that the
direction we have been heading is to define some level of syntax
conformance requirement for abstract processes (e.g. it will be possible
to perform non-trivial static analysis of an abstract process). The
consequence of this is that it makes sense to apply 89 to both abstract
and executable processes and it therefore makes sense to move the text
to a section that applies to both types of processes, section 6.2 seems
like a good candidate.
I also agree with Alex's concerns. I think the proposed language may
have unintentional implications that could complicate things.
I therefore propose that we edit your proposed language to read:
The value of the queryLanguage and expressionLanguage attributes on the
process XML element are global defaults and can be overridden on
specific activities like assign using the mechanisms defined later in
this specification. In addition the queryLanguage attribute is also
available for use in defining BPEL properties in WSDL. BPEL processors
MUST:
* statically determine which languages are referenced by queryLanguage
or expressionLanguage attributes either in the BPEL process definition
itself or in any BPEL property definitions in associated WSDLs and
* if any referenced language is unsupported by the BPEL processor then
the processor MUST NOT process the submitted BPEL process definition.
What do y'all think?
Yaron
Alex Yiu wrote:
