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

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

From: Assaf Arkin <arkin@intalio.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 14:27:32 -0800
Message-ID: <3E837AD4.5090701@intalio.com>
To: jdart@tibco.com
CC: Burdett David <david.burdett@commerceone.com>, Patil Sanjaykumar <sanjay.patil@iona.com>, Ricky Ho <riho@cisco.com>, public-ws-chor@w3.org


When a thread becomes a permathread it means there's interest in the 
topic and a variety of opinions. So you want to carry a discussion, make 
a poll, etc. But it also becomes hard for people to follow up, keep 
track of what points people have agreed/disagreed on, in fact lose track 
of what points were raised during the life of the thread.

So it's easier for to take it offline, summarize the major 
points/issues/concerns, then present the summary online for further 
discussion.

arkin

Jon Dart wrote:

> 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.
>>
>
>


-- 
"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 17:28:50 GMT

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