- From: Champion, Mike <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
- Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 07:57:10 -0600
- 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 UTC