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

RE: Abstract messages [Was: Multi-Party Binding Scenario]

From: Burdett, David <david.burdett@commerceone.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 13:59:52 -0800
Message-ID: <C1E0143CD365A445A4417083BF6F42CC053D1895@C1plenaexm07.commerceone.com>
To: "'jdart@tibco.com'" <jdart@tibco.com>, Assaf Arkin <arkin@intalio.com>
Cc: Patil Sanjaykumar <sanjay.patil@iona.com>, "Burdett, David" <david.burdett@commerceone.com>, Ricky Ho <riho@cisco.com>, public-ws-chor@w3.org
Just catching up on the emails on this thread which I generally agree with.

I would actually go for option 3 that you describe as I think you will find
that within one choreography, you want to use different types of binding
some of which are not even web services.

... but I do think we are getting close.

David

-----Original Message-----
From: Jon Dart [mailto:jdart@tibco.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 1:17 PM
To: Assaf Arkin
Cc: Patil Sanjaykumar; Burdett David; Ricky Ho; public-ws-chor@w3.org
Subject: Re: Abstract messages [Was: Multi-Party Binding Scenario]


I've discussed this internally with my colleague Bill Eidson, and we 
think it is ok to have the choreography depend on abstract WSDL. The 
implication is that you need to have a WSDL binding to whatever message 
format and/or protocol you are using. I realize others may have 
different opinions.

--Jon

Assaf Arkin wrote:

> The question is, is there any technical justification for doing 3 
> instead of 1 because at the end of the day inspite the additional layer 
> introduced by 3 it makes our job easier?
> 
> arkin
Received on Thursday, 27 March 2003 16:59:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 18 December 2010 01:00:07 GMT