- From: Assaf Arkin <arkin@intalio.com>
- Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 19:32:46 -0700
- To: "Burdett, David" <david.burdett@commerceone.com>
- CC: "'Martin Chapman'" <martin.chapman@oracle.com>, "'Jean-Jacques Dubray'" <jjd@eigner.com>, "'Yaron Y. Goland'" <ygoland@bea.com>, "'WS Chor Public'" <public-ws-chor@w3.org>
I assume what you mean by same role is not the fact that both choreographies choose to call it 'buyer', but the fact that in both of them the buyer would be able to act in the same way against the seller. Am I correct? In that case, would it make more sense to define the buyer's participant and then create two choreographies using that reusable definition? arkin Burdett, David wrote: >Assaf > >Here are two example choreographies with the same identical roles. > >The first does not allow cancelation of the order once it has been accepted. > >Choreography One >BUYER SELLER >1. Order ----------> >Either ... >2. <------------ Order Response >... or ... >3. <------------ Error Response > >The second does allow cancellation or chances after acceptance > >Choreography Two >BUYER SELLER >1. Order ----------> >Either ... >2. <------------ Order Response >... or ... >3. <------------ Error Response >If Order Response received then, at Buyer's discretion, either ... >4. Change Order ----> >5. <------------ Change Order Response >... or ... >6. Cancel Order ----> >7. <------------ Cancel Order Response >If Change Order Response received, and at Buyer's discretion then repeat >from step 4. > >These choreographies are different but the roles (and often the messages) >are identical. > >David > > >
Received on Monday, 9 June 2003 22:33:27 UTC