Hi Thilini, I think my concern was against the idea to use the WS-A RelatesTo header with BPEL correlation. IMO these are orthogonal concepts. If no exotic relationshipTypes are defined a WS-A RelatesTo header identifies the message ID of the request, making the message itself a reply to the request message. This implies to me that both messages implement a request/response MEP. Thus I believe that these headers should be added and interpreted by the Web service stack or the integration layer but should not be passed to the BPEL correlation mechanisms. The WS-A WSDL binding for instance would provide the means the enable an asynchronous transport via HTTP using WS-A headers to do the correlation between request and response completely on the SOAP/transport level. Headers are usually meant to contain control information for the messaging stack (e.g. addressing, security), where as the body (which contains the payload) is targeted to the application, in this case the BPEL engine. Making the headers available to the BPEL language is not defined in the standard and an extension of ODE. I believe it should only be used if there is no other way deal with the headers.
The BPEL correlation, in contrast, is meant to provide means for a message correlation using business values. So instead of artificial message IDs, correlation relies on meaningful values like the orderID, caseID, or any other set of values that are part of the body. In addition to that, such a correlation identifier is not restricted to one request-response-pair but can span a complex conversation between partners. This makes it a very powerful and flexible tool. I hope this makes it a bit more clear. Cheers, Tammo On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 7:38 AM, Thilini Ishaka <thiliniish...@gmail.com>wrote: > Hi Tammo, > > According to the previous discussion on 'using WS-A headers in bpel > correlation' at [1], it says, that's not a good idea conceptually. Could > you please elaborate more on that. > > [1] > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/ode-user/201112.mbox/%3c4eda7098.1040...@gmail.com%3E > > I checked with ODE 1.3.5 and this functionality did not work. I'm yet to > check that with ODE 1.3.6 > > Thanks in advance > Thilini > -- Tammo van Lessen - http://www.taval.de
