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

RE: Simple Choreography composition suggestion

From: Champion, Mike <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 13:09:29 -0400
Message-ID: <9A4FC925410C024792B85198DF1E97E4061E2CFF@usmsg03.sagus.com>
To: public-ws-chor@w3.org

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cummins, Fred A [mailto:fred.cummins@eds.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 1:00 PM
> To: Tony Fletcher; public-ws-chor@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Simple Choreography composition suggestion

> I do not consider your order-stock-leve composition to be a 
> choreography 
> composition, but rather the expansion of detail of the 
> implementation of a 
> service.  There is no direct interaction defined between A 
> and C, and thus 
> the relationship between the exchanges is determined 
> internally by B. While 
> one might use choreography to describe the behavior of B, 
> that should be 
> internal to B, and the use of C, should be hidden from A 
> since there is no
> need
> to expose this detail, and it restricts the design options of B.

+1 This is the differentiator between "the O-word" and Choreography, IMHO.

Or as David Burdett put it, "The common thread in all these choreographies
is the idea of exchanging
information which results in a changes of state of the roles involved."
Only those  parties who communicate directly in a manner that could cause
state changes are engaged in a "choreography" IMHO. 
Received on Tuesday, 15 July 2003 13:09:30 UTC

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