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

Re: Correlation Requirements

From: Monica Martin <monica.martin@sun.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2003 16:02:32 -0600
Message-ID: <3F32CC78.7090008@sun.com>
To: "Burdett, David" <david.burdett@commerceone.com>
CC: "'Martin Chapman'" <martin.chapman@oracle.com>, "'Yves Lafon'" <ylafon@w3.org>, jdart@tibco.com, "'Ugo Corda'" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>, "'Cummins Fred A'" <fred.cummins@eds.com>, public-ws-chor@w3.org

Burdett, David wrote:

> A very good point Martin - I was presuming "a" solution which is 
> perhaps premature.
>
> So let's do this the "right" way and think about it in terms of 
> requirements so here's my $0.02c on what they might be ...
>
> Requirement 1
> If a message is being sent between roles as part of the "performance" 
> of a choreography, then that message MUST identify the "choreography 
> instance" to which it belongs
>
> Requirement 2
> A choreography instance MAY be identified by specifying a unique 
> identifier in "metadata" (e.g. a SOAP header) associated with the message.
>
> Requirement 3
> A choreography instance MAY be identified by referencing a combination 
> of one or items of data in the "payload(s)" (e.g. the SOAP body and/or 
> attachments) of the message.
>
mm1: I would suggest on Reqt 2 and 3 that we specify the requirement not 
the solution, of which these requirements appear to do both.  
Particularly, a choreography instance may be referenced, - do we specify 
how?

> To make these complete, we should also define, roles, performance, 
> choreography instance, metadata and payload, but that can come later!
>
> Thoughts?
>
> David
>
Received on Thursday, 7 August 2003 17:59:46 GMT

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