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

Re: internal vs external

From: Steve Ross-Talbot <steve@enigmatec.net>
Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 08:02:21 +0100
Cc: <jdart@tibco.com>, "Jean-Jacques Dubray" <jjd@eigner.com>, "'Assaf Arkin'" <arkin@intalio.com>, "'Champion Mike'" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>, <public-ws-chor@w3.org>
To: "Martin Chapman" <martin.chapman@oracle.com>
Message-Id: <AE9AB6A7-7F90-11D7-92F6-000393AD2AA6@enigmatec.net>

Alas one of the problems of working over here (in Europe) is that I get 
a this first thing in the morning. It's difficult to interject into 
such a debate but here goes ....

Point 1.

I don't think that we should concern ourselves for the moment about 
language issues.

Point 2.
The privacy or publication of behaviour (I use this as a metaphor for 
choreography) should be viewed from the point of view of the provider 
of the service under discussion. Thus in JJ's Boeing case the supplier 
makes available that part of the behaviour
that they wish to make public and no more. If Boeing want more details, 
then they want internal behaviour and they can have
that but imho it isn't what this group is focussed on doing. So it is 
out of scope.

Point 3.
Having dismissed language issues I'll bring them back. If in the 
example above we can use some scoping operator to rule in
or rule out behaviour (you can read make visible and make invisible) 
then I'm all for it. If we can have an operator that allows
us to control what is visible and what is not from the external 
behaviour prespective then that would be minimally sufficient.

Point 4.
Use cases and requirements must exist in order to understand such a 
scoping operator and what it might need to do.


On Monday, May 5, 2003, at 11:17  pm, Martin Chapman wrote:

>
> surely the crux of the matter is whether a choreo langauge needs 
> different
> constructs for  internal and external defintions. If there are no
> differences in  constructs required, it is a design choice as to what 
> one
> exposes. Can we think of any any constructs that are required in one 
> but not
> the other?
>
> Martin.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: public-ws-chor-request@w3.org
>> [mailto:public-ws-chor-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Jon Dart
>> Sent: Monday, May 05, 2003 1:20 PM
>> To: Jean-Jacques Dubray
>> Cc: 'Assaf Arkin'; 'Champion Mike'; public-ws-chor@w3.org
>> Subject: Re: internal vs external
>>
>>
>>
>> Jean-Jacques Dubray wrote:
>>
>>> IMHO, being able to define both public, and semi-private 
>>> choreographies
>>> is a requirement.
>>
>> +1
>>
>> However IMO it is also important to capture the use cases mentioned
>> here, as they help determine what degrees and kinds of privacy are 
>> needed.
>>
>> --Jon
>>
>>
>>
>
> This email is confidential and may be protected by legal privilege. If 
> you are not the intended recipient,  please do not copy or disclose 
> its content but  delete the email and contact the sender immediately. 
> Whilst we run antivirus software on all internet emails we are not 
> liable for any loss or damage. The recipient is advised to run their 
> own antivirus software.
>

This email is confidential and may be protected by legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient,  please do not copy or disclose its content but  delete the email and contact the sender immediately. Whilst we run antivirus software on all internet emails we are not liable for any loss or damage. The recipient is advised to run their own antivirus software.
Received on Tuesday, 6 May 2003 03:03:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 18 December 2010 01:00:17 GMT