David RR Webber - XML ebusiness (Gnos...@compuserve.com)
Sep 9, 2003 1:34:35 pm
EXACTLY! This problem has already been solved by the CPA team!!
Why re-invent this? The partner role stuff in BPEL is weak compared
to CPA - so makes sense to upgrade here.
Using your CPA you can point at the BPEL process and specify the
QoS in the CPA. I've also very successfully templated this for
CPA - so that the delivery options and combinations are simply
drag-and-drop options within the CPA wizard UI.
Makes sense for us to liaise with the CPA team to ensure that
a CPA can define BPEL processing adequately.
Looking at it they already have the means provided to point at
a BPEL script. The BPEL engine may need to query the CPA to
determine lowerlevel functionality - and that we may need to
ensure there are the right "slots" for within the CPA schema.
Probably an excellent exercise to go thru anyway - to quantify the
details that are relevant for BPEL.
Message text written by Ron Ten-Hove
These could be used by the deployer when selecting or creating the
appropriate bindings for the abstract operation "acceptPayment".
This still wouldn't help the interoperability problem -- two deployers
for two different engines that must interoperate must "exchange notes"
to assure compatible bindings are chosen. This starts to become a very