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 14:10:21 -0800
Message-ID: <C1E0143CD365A445A4417083BF6F42CC053D1898@C1plenaexm07.commerceone.com>
To: "'jdart@tibco.com'" <jdart@tibco.com>, "Burdett, David" <david.burdett@commerceone.com>
Cc: "'Assaf Arkin'" <arkin@intalio.com>, Patil Sanjaykumar <sanjay.patil@iona.com>, Ricky Ho <riho@cisco.com>, public-ws-chor@w3.org
Yes, and I do not want to stop that. On the other hand if we are putting
forward a proposal of the pros and cons, then it might be easier to do that
off-line and cause less "noise" on the list, and the work was done by the
more active participants. We could then:
1. Produce a proposed summary
2. Review the summary
3. Carry out a straw poll.

Chairs? Any comments?

David

-----Original Message-----
From: Jon Dart [mailto:jdart@tibco.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 2:04 PM
To: Burdett David
Cc: 'Assaf Arkin'; Patil Sanjaykumar; Ricky Ho; public-ws-chor@w3.org
Subject: Re: Abstract messages [Was: Multi-Party Binding Scenario]


I would be willing to do that, but isn't W3C generally that technical 
discussion is public?

--Jon

Burdett, David wrote:
> Assaf/Jon
> 
> Would it make sense for to work together on the pros and cons of each 
> approach and then jointly submit it to the group?
> 
> David
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Assaf Arkin [mailto:arkin@intalio.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 1:23 PM
> To: jdart@tibco.com
> Cc: Patil Sanjaykumar; Burdett David; Ricky Ho; public-ws-chor@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Abstract messages [Was: Multi-Party Binding Scenario]
> 
> 
> Since this would effect what the language looks like, I suggest we take
> a straw poll on this issue and also list all the
> objections/issues/concerns that members have regarding a particular
> approach they can't live with. Then see how to proceed from there.
> 
> arkin
> 
> Jon Dart wrote:
> 
>  >
>  > 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
>  >
>  >
> 
> 
> -- 
> "Those who can, do; those who can't, make screenshots"
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Assaf Arkin                                          arkin@intalio.com
> Intalio Inc.                                           www.intalio.com
> The Business Process Management Company                 (650) 577 4700
> 
> 
> This message is intended only for the use of the Addressee and
> may contain information that is PRIVILEGED and CONFIDENTIAL.
> If you are not the intended recipient, dissemination of this
> communication is prohibited. If you have received this communication
> in error, please erase all copies of the message and its attachments
> and notify us immediately.
> 
Received on Thursday, 27 March 2003 17:10:28 GMT

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