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

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

From: Martin Chapman <martin.chapman@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 14:25:36 -0800
To: "'Burdett, David'" <david.burdett@commerceone.com>, <jdart@tibco.com>
Cc: "'Assaf Arkin'" <arkin@intalio.com>, "'Patil Sanjaykumar'" <sanjay.patil@iona.com>, "'Ricky Ho'" <riho@cisco.com>, <public-ws-chor@w3.org>
Message-ID: <004201c2f4af$ca6cb050$0fae2382@us.oracle.com>
by all means have off-line discussion and bring them to the group for
consideration.
 
Martin.

-----Original Message-----
From: public-ws-chor-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-ws-chor-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Burdett, David
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 2:10 PM
To: 'jdart@tibco.com'; Burdett, David
Cc: 'Assaf Arkin'; Patil Sanjaykumar; Ricky Ho; public-ws-chor@w3.org
Subject: RE: Abstract messages [Was: Multi-Party Binding Scenario]



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 17:26:06 GMT

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