[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] onEvent inconsistency between spec & schema?
Another issue is that the variable
attribute should be optional for <onMessage> and <onEvent> in order
to allow for the <fromPart> or empty messages. I believe that this is
correct in the spec but incorrect in the schema snippet below. I think we should track these as an issue
as opposed to an action item. The main reason for wanting an issue is that the
schema hasn’t been folded back into the spec yet so an action item doesn’t
seem appropriate. From: Ron Ten-Hove [mailto:Ronald.Ten-Hove@Sun.COM] BPELers, <onEvent partnerLink="NCName" portType="QName"? operation="NCName" (messageType="QName" | element="QName")? variable="NCName"? messageExchange="NCName"? >*
but the real schema reads: <complexType name="tOnEvent"> <complexContent> <extension base="bpws:tOnMsgCommon"> <sequence> <element ref="bpws:scope"/> </sequence> <attribute name="messageType" type="QName" use="required"/> <attribute name="variable" type="NCName" use="required"/> </extension> </complexContent> </complexType>
The
problem areas are in bold blue.
The pseudo-schema introduces a new attribute, named element,
as an alternative to messageType, and makes them
optional. The actual schema makes no mention of an "element"
attribute, and the messageType attribute is required. |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]