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

RE: Off topic but relevant

From: Burdett, David <david.burdett@commerceone.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 08:47:00 -0700
Message-ID: <C1E0143CD365A445A4417083BF6F42CC053D1CE0@c1plenaexm07-b.commerceone.com>
To: "'Monica Martin'" <monica.martin@sun.com>, Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>, "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

Monica

Perhaps this is something that should be done by XMLP - I don't have a
problem with that. However I think that the implementation of a solution
that is using the choreography definition specification that this group will
produce NEEDS information in the SOAP header such as Conversation Id,
Message Id, etc.

This, in turn, makes our spec dependent on the existence of such specs that
we can reference in our own work.

So I think this IS an issue for us which means that perhaps we should make
it a formal liaison point/request with XMLP.

Does this make sense?

David 

-----Original Message-----
From: Monica Martin [mailto:monica.martin@sun.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 6:51 AM
To: Yves Lafon; Burdett, David
Cc: 'jdart@tibco.com'; 'Ugo Corda'; Cummins Fred A;
public-ws-chor@w3.org
Subject: Re: Off topic but relevant



>>Burdett: 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.
>>    
>>
>
>Lafon: 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).
>  
>
>>Burdett: 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?
>>    
>>
>
>Lafon: I would be interested to see them, why not involve XMLP as well?
>  
>
mm1: I believe, if only informally, this discussion has occurred in 
XMLP.  Dave, can you please re-address this with XMLP and let us 
concentrate on what is our primary objective? Thanks.

>
>  
>
Received on Thursday, 7 August 2003 11:47:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 18 December 2010 01:00:27 GMT