[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Groups - BPEL4WS 1.1 Issues Log May 23.doc uploaded
I was trying to make 2 points:
1) BPEL's interoperability is a Web service interoperability problem.
2) Portability on the other side is a true BPEL problem. SQL had some
of the same portability promisses. It delivered huge value to the
enterprise while not delivering 100% code portability.
Edwin
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ugo Corda [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 6:25 AM
> To: [email protected]; [email protected]
>
> > - We should have interoperability out of the box through Web
> > service interfaces
>
> That could be more complicated depending on which WSDL
> binding we are considering. So far I have not seen any
> constraint in BPEL for WSDL to be limited to the standard W3C
> bindings (SOAP, or HTTP, or MIME).
>
> Even considering WSDL SOAP binding only, then it is an issue
> of whether we are considering SOAP over HTTP, or some other
> popular but proprietary bindings (e.g. to a JMS provider).
>
> Or are you thinking of a different type of interoperability?
>
> Ugo
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>
>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]