W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-chor@w3.org > April 2003

RE: Abstract Bindable Choreography

From: Patil, Sanjaykumar <sanjay.patil@iona.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 12:06:00 -0700
Message-ID: <EA3ECEFACBE7674789ADE4D9E3ABB6B0104BBD@AMERWEST-EMS1.IONAGLOBAL.COM>
To: "Assaf Arkin" <arkin@intalio.com>
Cc: "Burdett, David" <david.burdett@commerceone.com>, "Monica J. Martin" <monica.martin@sun.com>, "Ricky Ho" <riho@cisco.com>, <public-ws-chor@w3.org>


>> It's easy to say that the transition occureed due to a time constraint 
>> and label it as a "time-out transition". The state you are in may have 
>> some meaningful name, like "no response provided" or "time to cancel and 
>> report error". But generally speaking, if you only get to this state due 
>> to the time-out event, you may as well characterize it as "time-out state".

So, you find it useful to tag "both" transition and the state as of type "time-out". Also, I agree that specifying just time-out will not be greatly useful and we need to provide for fully defining the time-out constraints, etc. 

Now, in the choreography language, we could either treat time-out transitions and states as any other. Or define explicitly in the language time-out as a type of transition, a type of state, and also define the bondage that a timeout transition results into a timeout state (I guess we already assume certain types for the state:- start, end, error, etc and timed-out become one more! Is that right?)
Received on Thursday, 10 April 2003 15:06:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:00:58 UTC