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

Re: Off topic but relevant

From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 11:06:40 +0200 (MEST)
To: "Burdett, David" <david.burdett@commerceone.com>
cc: "'jdart@tibco.com'" <jdart@tibco.com>, "'Ugo Corda'" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>, Cummins Fred A <fred.cummins@eds.com>, public-ws-chor@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.56.0308071052550.10212@tarantula.inria.fr>

On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, Burdett, David wrote:

> Jon
>
> There's a whole bunch of things like "identification of choreography
> instance" that can usefully be defined just once and then used by everybody.
> I'd include in this the following additional information that needs to go in
> a (SOAP) message (there are probably more):
> 1. Message Id - a unique id for a message
> 2. RefToMessage Id - a way of identifying an earlier message to which this
> message relates - useful for identifying messages in error
> 3. Conversation Id - which is really a choreography instance id as it
> identifies a set of related messages
> 4. Creation Time - the time a message was initially created
> 5. Expiry Time - the time after which the recipient of a SOAP message should
> no longer process it.

Message Ids, and time information, although very useful may not be easy to
define in an absolute manner. A requirement to have globally unique MsgIds
is too restrictive to be acceptable, as some devices won't be able to
generate them (and it puts restriction on choreographies using such Ids).

> I've actually got a couple of specs that define the above as SOAP headers.
> Is anyone interested in taking them further ... to OASIS perhaps ... on a
> royalty free basis of course?

I would be interested to see them, why not involve XMLP as well?
Thanks,

>
> David
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jon Dart [mailto:jdart@tibco.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 3:51 PM
> To: Burdett David
> Cc: 'Ugo Corda'; Cummins Fred A; public-ws-chor@w3.org
> Subject: Re: simultaneous execution
>
>
> These are not new objectives. IMO the only issue is, some of the
> facilities you were talking about (e.g. identification of choreography
> instance) are not a standard part of WSDL nor of common message formats.
> So there's potentially a problem there. One possibility (I think this
> was suggested) is that we decide these are abstract properties and we
> basically defer the problem of realizing them at a concrete message
> level, which I could support. If you want to go in a different direction
> than this, then I need convincing.
>
> --Jon
>
> Burdett, David wrote:
> > I think we are actually agreed on two objectives:
> > 1. The need to create choreography definitions that are indpendent of
> > the message format, and
> > 2. To define how choreography definitions are bound to Web Services and
> > WSDL in particular.
> >
> > I don't think these objectives are mutually exclusive and we should be
> > able to do both. Does anyone disagree?
> >
> > David
> >
> >     -----Original Message-----
> >     *From:* Ugo Corda [mailto:UCorda@SeeBeyond.com]
> >     *Sent:* Wednesday, August 06, 2003 3:06 PM
> >     *To:* Cummins, Fred A; Burdett, David
> >     *Cc:* public-ws-chor@w3.org
> >     *Subject:* RE: simultaneous execution
> >
> >>+1 to defining how WS-Choreography binds to Web services.
> >
> >>The Charter specifically says: "The language(s) should build upon
> >     the foundation of the WSDL 1.2".
> >
> >>WSDL 1.2 defines interfaces and end points. If we don't at least
> >     define some precise mapping between WS-Choreography and WSDL
> >     interfaces, then I don't see in which >way we are building "upon the
> >     foundation of WSDL 1.2".
> >     [FAC] I believe we can do that without sacrificing broader
> >     applicability of the choreography.  I'm more concerned that we not
> >     link the choreography to the message formats.
> >
> >     If your concern is about about linking the choreography to the
> >     message formats on the wire, I would like to point out, as I have
> >     done before, that a portType/interface message structure does not
> >     imply any commitment to a format on the wire. It's only when the
> >     portType/interface is bound to a particular service that the wire
> >     format is defined.
> >
> >     Ugo
> >
>
>
>

-- 
Yves Lafon - W3C
"Baroula que barouleras, au tiťu toujou t'entourneras."
Received on Thursday, 7 August 2003 05:07:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:01:00 UTC