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: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 07:57:10 -0600
Message-ID: <9A4FC925410C024792B85198DF1E97E4061E2ED0@usmsg03.sagus.com>
To: public-ws-chor@w3.org



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fletcher, Tony [mailto:Tony.Fletcher@choreology.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 9:12 AM
> To: public-ws-chor@w3.org
> Subject: FW: Simple Choreography composition suggestion
> 

> 
> The point I disagree with is the notion that something is not a
> Choreography if somewhere, at some level it involves 'orchestration'
> within a single system.  If we accept this notion / 
> restriction it means
> that you can only have Choreographies involving exactly two parties
> where each party only plays a single role - we will not be 
> able to have
> Choreographies with more than two parties / roles at all.

That wasn't my intent, FWIW.  All sorts of compositions and decompositions
can occur within a "choreography," but IMHO only those that involve the
globally visible shared state are in scope for the choreography description
language we are developing.  The discussion yesterday got me re-thinking all
sorts of things ... if the fundamental unit of a "choreography" is a Web
service invocation / MEP, then all sorts of implementation details of the
service that involved "orchestrated" interactions behind the scenes are
abstracted away, but if the fundamental unit is a message, then all those
messages behind the scenes have to be accounted for somehow.  I'm as
confused as anyone at this point.  

By all means let's make sure that we don't box ourselves into a corner based
on some preliminary guesses about what terms mean!
 
Received on Wednesday, 16 July 2003 09:57:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 18 December 2010 01:00:24 GMT