Hi,

Here is the reworded version based Sanjay's suggestion:

A componentType document for a BPEL process definition can be found by using either "process QName matching" or "contribution URI matching" mechanisms. If a componentType document cannot be found through either "process QName matching" or "contribution URI matching" mechanism, SCA infrastructure MUST implicitly generate a componentType document based on the introspection of the implementation BPEL process definition.

For "process QName matching", a BPEL process (which is identified by a QName) can be matched with any ComponentType document that has an <implementation.bpel> refers to the same process QName, wherever it might be within the contribution. For example, if a componentType document has an <implementation.bpel process="foo:bar">, it will be considered a match for a BPEL process identified by "foo:bar" QName (where the prefix "foo" in both documents are resolved to the same namespace.).

For "contribution URI matching", a BPEL process can be matched with a componentType document of which the contribution URI is identical to the contribution URI of the BPEL process except of that the extension is changed to ".componentType". For example, if "file:/scratch/dir1/compositeX/Foo.bpel" is the contribution URI of a BPEL process, then the contribution URI of a matching componentType document would be: "file:/scratch/dir1/compositeX/Foo.componentType"

If a non-one-to-one relationship is found during matching (e.g. one-to-many or many-to-one), SCA Infrastructure SHOULD signal an error to users.

I hope that people like the updated proposal better and find it easier to follow. Thanks!

Regards, Alex Yiu

Patil, Sanjay wrote:

Yes. I think we should add a statement to point out the error case. -- Sanjay

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Alex Yiu [mailto:alex...@oracle.com] Sent: Thursday, Jan 17, 2008 16:40 PM To: Patil, Sanjay Cc: Anish Karmarkar; Michael Rowley; OASIS BPEL; ALEX...@oracle.com Subject: Re: [sca-bpel] Issue 2 - Does the spec allow a componentType side file? Hi, Sanjay,

Just to clarify: Do you mean if there are two componentType documents that are matched (one by URI, or the other by QName), we will treat that as an error case?

Thanks!

Regards, Alex Yiu

Patil, Sanjay wrote:

I think (after Michael Rowley convinced me with his argument on the call) there is no need to standardize the search order. Instead, we could do the following:

a> Start with the text: A componentType document for a BPEL process definition can be found by using either 'QName matching' or 'contribution URI matching' mechanisms. When a componentType document can not be found by using either of these mechanisms, the SCA infrastructure MUST implicitly generate a componentType document based on the introspection of the implementation BPEL process definition

b> Describe the two mechanisms of finding componentType

-- Sanjay