This Bugzilla instance is a read-only archive of historic NetBeans bug reports. To report a bug in NetBeans please follow the project's instructions for reporting issues.

Bug 95962 - Inconsistent Use of Partner Link Connection Terms
Summary: Inconsistent Use of Partner Link Connection Terms
Status: NEW
Alias: None
Product: soa
Classification: Unclassified
Component: BPEL (show other bugs)
Version: 5.x
Hardware: All All
: P3 blocker (vote)
Assignee: issues@soa
Depends on:
Reported: 2007-02-19 17:00 UTC by dante
Modified: 2008-05-19 14:36 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Exception Reporter:


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description dante 2007-02-19 17:00:53 UTC
The terms used to define how a Partner Link is to be implement are inconsistent
and confusing within the product. Within the BPEL editor they are referred to as
'My Role' and 'Partner Role' where as in the CASA editor they are provider and
consumer. The improve the usability of the product they should be consistent and
I would suggest that the CASA "Provide" be used in preference to 'My Role' and
and 'Consume' be used in preference 'Partner Role' 



VERSION: ALASKA 200702090600 (KENAI)
Comment 1 Kirill Sorokin 2008-05-06 16:29:30 UTC
There is apparently a conflict in terminology between BPEL (roles) and JBI (providers/consumers). Someone must decide
whichever should take preference. Andi, what's your opinion on this?
Comment 2 Kirill Sorokin 2008-05-19 14:36:23 UTC
Comments from Andi:

There is dilemma here; people really into BPEL will understand partnerlink, everyone else will not. Also the reason the
terminology used is different is because what you see in CASA is actually and "internal endpoint name", which just
happens to be made up (in part) of the partner link details. Not trying to defend, just give some background.

I do believe we need to make the naming in our product more approachable; less centric on technologies such as WSDL and
even BPEL to some degree; however, I would also say there should be "side notes", some way for folks that know the
technologies to understand what it maps to.

Now in principle I would agree, if we can find a better generically understood term (that still matches the concept)
rather than partner link, we should use it. Obviously we would have to run it by the BPEL team to makes sure there is no
hole in describing it a provides/consumes.