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

Re: Feedback on Glossary (Composition)

From: Jon Dart <jdart@tibco.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 15:39:36 -0700
Message-ID: <3EADADA8.6080702@tibco.com>
To: public-ws-chor@w3.org

I agree with Fred that the draft definition is complex and doesn't seem 
quite right.

Among other things, it says "Definition of interfaces that express 
complex processes, and can, in essence, handle multiple 'threads' of 
execution simultaneously". I fail to see the connection between complex 
processes and threads of execution. Composition doesn't imply 
concurrency IMO.

Composition in general implies the ability to construct complex 
artifacts from simpler parts.

One aspect of this is the ability to hierarchically nest parts of a 
choreography definition (Assaf's recursive composition, mentioned 
already in the glossary).

IMO a second aspect is this:

Portions of the overall choreography definition are composable if it is 
possible to re-use those portions in another part of the choreography 
definition, or in another choreography definition. This commonly implies 
the ability to incorporate definitions by reference rather than by copy.

--Jon
Received on Monday, 28 April 2003 18:39:47 UTC

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