Issue - 77 - Motion to require access to values not defined in portType

["Yaron Goland" <ygoland@bea.com>]

In a previous mail in this thread Satish Thatte said:
We must assume that the design of a portType is done properly, i.e., the
"application level" data required to process a message in a business process
is part of the definition of each message. If this assumption is violated
there is not much we can do.

Section 3.7 of the WSDL 1.1 states " It is not necessary to exhaustively
list all headers that appear in the SOAP Envelope using soap:header. " This
means that even a portType which has been done 'properly' may not
necessarily have messages for every header that may appear in the SOAP
envelope received over the wire. Given that even WSDL 1.1 recognizes that
one can reasonably receive SOAP headers that weren't defined in the portType
it would seem reasonable for BPEL to provide a mechanism to access such
values.

I would therefore propose that we put forward a motion that requires the
group to define a mechanism that will enable access to the full contents of
a WSDL described message as transmitted over the wire including contents not
specifically defined in the portType definition.

    Yaron

-----Original Message-----
From: Furniss, Peter [mailto:Peter.Furniss@choreology.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 5:14 PM
To: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [wsbpel] Reannouncement - Issue - 77 - BPEL cannot handle some SOAP
header bindings


Due to a mistake on my part, this issue was erroneously announced as number
78. It is really number 77 and is in the issues list with that number. Here
it is again with a hand-edit of the number.
 
This issue has already had considerable discussion as "Possible new issue
...", which I've grandfathered into the links list - please use an Issue -
77 - subject line on further discussion messages.
 
Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: Furniss, Peter 
Sent: 21 October 2003 21:36
To: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [wsbpel] Issue - 78 - BPEL cannot handle some SOAP header bindings



This issue has been added to the wsbpel issue list. The issues list is
posted as a Technical Committee document to the OASIS WSBPEL TC
<http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel> pages on a regular
basis. The current edition, as a TC document, is the most recent document
with the title in the "Issues" folder of the WSBPEL
<http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel/documents.php> TC
document list - the next posting will include this issue. The list editor's
working copy, which will normally include an issue when it is announced, is
available at this
<http://www.choreology.com/external/WS_BPEL_issues_list.html> constant URL. 


Issue - 77   - BPEL cannot handle some SOAP header bindings

Status: open
Date added: 21 Oct 2003
Submitter: Ugo  <mailto:UCorda@SeeBeyond.com> Corda
Date submitted: 21 October 2003
Description: Let's suppose we have the following WSDL file: 
<message name="In"> 

    <part name="InPart" element="InElement"/> 

</message> 





<message name="Header"> 

    <part name="HeaderPart" element="HeaderElement"/> 

</message> 





<portType name="myPortType"> 

    <operation name="op1"> 

        <input message="In"/> 

    </operation> 

</portType> 





<binding type="myPortType" ... > 

    <soap:binding ..../> 

    <operation name="op1"> 

        <input> 

            <soap:body parts="InPart" ...> 

            <soap:header message="Header" part="HeaderPart" .../> 

        </input> 

    </operation> 

</binding> 

In this example, the abstract operation "op1" refers to message "In", but
the binding brings in an additional second message, "Header", for the
concrete operation. 

It seems that BPEL would not be able to process the "Header" information in
any way. For instance, a "receive" operation would only be able to specify
one inputVariable, which would be associated with the "In" message and not
the "Header" message. In other words, the "Header" message would carry
information to the "receive" operation that BPEL would have no access to. 


If this is the case, new Web services defined with BPEL in mind could easily
modify this scenario by defining both body and header as being part of a
single message, but legacy Web services might be out of reach for BPEL.
Links: Ugo
<http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wsbpel/200310/msg00197.html> Corda, 20
Oct 2003     Frank
<http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wsbpel/200310/msg00208.html> Leymann,
21 Oct 2003     Ugo
<http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wsbpel/200310/msg00214.html> Corda, 21
Oct 2003     Satish
<http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wsbpel/200310/msg00217.html> Thatte,
21 Oct 2003     Peter
<http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wsbpel/200310/msg00218.html> Furniss,
21 Oct 2003     Ugo
<http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wsbpel/200310/msg00219.html> Corda, 21
Oct 2003     Satish
<http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wsbpel/200310/msg00220.html> Thatte,
21 Oct 2003     Ugo
<http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wsbpel/200310/msg00221.html> Corda, 21
Oct 2003     Satish
<http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wsbpel/200310/msg00222.html> Thatte,
21 Oct 2003     Ugo
<http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wsbpel/200310/msg00224.html> Corda, 21
Oct 2003
Changes: 21 Oct 2003 - new issue


  _____  


To comment on this issue, please follow-up to this announcement on the
wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org list (replying to this message should
automatically send your message to that list), or ensure the subject line as
you send it starts "Issue - 78 - [anything]" or is a reply to such a
message. 


To add a new issue, see the issues procedures document (but the address for
new issue submission is the sender of this announcement). 


To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the
OASIS TC), go to
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel/members/leave_workgroup.
php.

<<attachment: winmail.dat>>