[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [sca-bpel] Issue 49: BPEL process QName is assumed to be unique
Mike, is there a reason why we don't treat all qualified names (for WSDL,
XSD, BPEL, and other XML entities) in the same way, using the rules that
you quoted from the SCA-Assembly spec -- in other words, what would be
specific for BPEL processes?
Kind Regards
Dieter K�nig
Senior Technical Staff Member, WebSphere Process Server Architect
IBM Software Group, Application and Integration Middleware Software
WSS Business Process Solutions
Phone: +49-7031-16-3426 IBM Deutschland (Embedded
image moved
to file:
pic31024.gif)
E-Mail: dieterkoenig@de.ibm.com Sch�naicher Str. 220
71032 B�blingen
Germany
IBM Deutschland
Research &
Development
GmbH /
Vorsitzender des
Aufsichtsrats:
Martin Jetter
Gesch�ftsf�hrung:
Erich Baier
Sitz der
Gesellschaft:
B�blingen /
Registergericht:
Amtsgericht
Stuttgart, HRB
243294
From: Mike Edwards <mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com>
To: OASIS BPEL <sca-bpel@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date: 17.07.2009 09:48
Subject: RE: [sca-bpel] Issue 49: BPEL process QName is assumed to be unique
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: mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com
From: Michael Rowley <michael.rowley@activevos.com>
To: Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>, OASIS BPEL
<sca-bpel@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date: 16/07/2009 19:05
Subjec RE: [sca-bpel] Issue 49: BPEL process QName is assumed to be
t: 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:Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com.]
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
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
