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

Re: Co-ordination protocol and BPEL

From: Mark Little <mark.little@arjuna.com>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 15:18:13 +0100
Message-ID: <008e01c3206c$fb2468d0$b596f080@exhp>
To: "Furniss, Peter" <Peter.Furniss@choreology.com>, "Assaf Arkin" <arkin@intalio.com>, "Ricky Ho" <riho@cisco.com>
Cc: <public-ws-chor@w3.org>

> > Is it appropriate to give pros and cons of one transaction 
> > protocol over another? When I mentioned WS-C and BTP I meant 
> > only that WS-C allows different coordination protocols 
> > (multi-phase) to be plugged in whereas BTP is tied to 
> > two-phase. That was not a statement of pros or cons, merely fact.
> > 
> > If we go down your route then we could get bogged down in "my 
> > protocol is better than yours" and I don't think we should. 
> > Let's keep this at an abstract level.
> 
> The discussion as a whole (not particularly your contribution) seemed to
> be based on the assumptions of WS-T, and its particular patterns. That
> was getting into the discussion about how to handle coordination issues
> in the choreography (or rather in the process language).

OK.

> 
> Obviously a partisan slanging match is not useful, but there is a
> general issue. The availability of a general registration protocol could
> lead to "splitter" philosophy, where every minor difference in
> implementation pattern used a different coordination protocol.  That's
> not to say that there aren't really different coordination patterns.
> They never seem to come out into the world though.
> 
> Not sure if we're still on topic for this list.

Not sure either ;)

Mark.
Received on Thursday, 22 May 2003 10:19:06 GMT

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