On 9/12/07, Jens Goldhammer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I want to ask the other way round. Is this behaviour bpel2-compliant?
Yes. BPEL 2.0 spec says (section 8.4.2) the engine must initialize variables in a certain way: <start_quote> Using <copy> to initialize variables When the destination selected by the to-spec in a <copy> operation is un-initialized, which is either an entire WS-BPEL variable or a message part, that destination MUST first be initialized before executing the replacement rules defined above, as if the following has been applied: • For complex type and simple type variables or message parts, initialize to a skeleton structure composed of a DII and an anonymous Document Element EII. • For element based variables or message parts, initialize to a skeleton structure composed of a DII and an Document Element EII with the name matching the element name used in variable declaration. </end_quote> Is there an other way for being compliant and make semantically the same? Based on the above, I think not. (But I might be missing something) alex
