ode-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Matthieu Riou" <matth...@offthelip.org>
Subject Re: Partner Links in simBPEL (was: Easy BPEL aka BPEL4Coders aka BPEL4Hackers)
Date Fri, 07 Dec 2007 20:20:54 GMT
On Dec 7, 2007 9:03 AM, Oliver Kopp <oliver.kopp@iaas.uni-stuttgart.de>

> Hi,
> > I question if we need to keep partnerLinkType alive?
> If we want to have a 1:1 relation of simBPEL to BPEL, then we really need
> to
> keep it.
> We think, it is good to have a more easy language, but this should be the
> second step. First, there should be a bijective mapping between simBPEL
> and
> BPEL, so that one can freely choose the syntax one likes.
> We think that something like simBPEL+ should be born afterwards. There,
> language extensions such as your security context and anonymous partner
> links could be brought in. Then, the simple syntax is clearly
> distinguished
> from the extensions of BPEL.

I sympathize with the intent but don't agree that compatibility should be
achieved at *all* cost. Although we should be able to reach a reasonable
degree of compatibility between the formats. For the particular case of
partnerLinkTypes, they don't need to be in the SimPEL document but could be
extracted from deployment information that associates partner links with an
endpoint or a portType. So you would have something like SimPEL+deploy <->
BPEL. I think it's not an unreasonable requirement and saves us the pain of
explain why we have an unnecessary abstraction sitting there for no real


> > It's a modeling artifact, but if we're not aiming for modeling,
> > do we need the extra indirection?
> Isn't the introduction of anonymous partner links a new kind of modeling?
> In
> that case, the modeler has not to think about the concrete partner links.
> Cheers,
>        Olly, Tammo

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message