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

Re: [Requirements] Non-requirement for MEPs

From: <ChBussler@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 10:37:39 EST
Message-ID: <b4.1a04ef3d.2ba745c3@aol.com>
To: steve@enigmatec.net, Tony.Fletcher@choreology.com, public-ws-chor@w3.org
CC: ChBussler@aol.com
Hi,

I think it is preferrable not to be restricted to WSDL, but also allow for 
the inclusion of other definitions/mechanisms.

Christoph

In a message dated 3/17/03 7:04:24 AM Pacific Standard Time, 
steve@enigmatec.net writes:


> Subj:RE: [Requirements] Non-requirement for MEPs 
> Date:3/17/03 7:04:24 AM Pacific Standard Time
> From:<A HREF="mailto:steve@enigmatec.net">steve@enigmatec.net</A>
> To:<A HREF="mailto:Tony.Fletcher@choreology.com">Tony.Fletcher@choreology.com</A>, <A HREF="mailto:public-ws-chor@w3.org">public-ws-chor@w3.org</A>
> Sent from the Internet 
> 
> 
> 
> Tony,
>  
> I think that there is an implication of this exclusion. It is that the 
> choreography would be tied to WSDL based MEP's. If however we make MEP's 
> part of the scope then we could extend the reach of the groups
> work to include non-WSDL based formalisms.
>  
> Cheers
>  
> Steve T
> 
> >> -----Original Message-----
>> From: public-ws-chor-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-chor-request@w3.org]
>> On Behalf Of Fletcher, Tony
>> Sent: 17 March 2003 13:26
>> To: public-ws-chor@w3.org
>> Subject: [Requirements] Non-requirement for MEPs
>> 
>> 
>> Dear Colleagues,
>>  
>> Just to put in a message what I stated at the inaugural F2F.
>>  
>> Non- requirement for MEPs:
>> It presently seems to me that it is a 'non-requirement' to standards 
>> message exchange patterns (MEP) as part of the WS-Chor work.  MEPs act as 
>> a constraint on what you can do, so if one, or more, are defined we will 
>> have to be very sure that users of the technique can live within that set 
>> of constraints without having to 'jump through hoops' such as extending 
>> the standard MEPs or having to chain them together to get the pattern they 
>> actually need.
>>  
>> Requirements:
>> We certainly need to specify the 'construct'  for sending a single message 
>> so that should be added to the requirements list.
>>  
>> We may also wish to standardise as part of the specification (in a 
>> normative appendix perhaps) some standard business messages, such as a 
>> generic error reporting message and an acknowledgement message
>>  
>> Best Regards     Tony
>> A M Fletcher
>>  
>> Cohesions 1.0 (TM)
>>  
>> Business transaction management software for application coordination
>>  
>> Choreology Ltd., 13 Austin Friars, London EC2N 2JX     UK
>> Tel: +44 (0) 20 76701787   Fax: +44 (0) 20 7670 1785  Mobile: +44 (0) 7801 
>> 948219
>> <A HREF="mailto:tony.fletcher@choreology.com">tony.fletcher@choreology.com</A>     (Home: amfletcher@iee.org)
>> 
>>  
>> 
> 


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------
Christoph Bussler
ChBussler@aol.com
hometown.aol.com/ChBussler/
www.google.com/search?q=bussler
www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=bussler&btnI=I%27m+Feeling+Lucky
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------
Received on Monday, 17 March 2003 10:38:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 18 December 2010 01:00:06 GMT