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

Re: Co-ordination protocol and BPEL

From: Monica J. Martin <monica.martin@sun.com>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 12:00:48 -0600
Message-ID: <3ECE61D0.10603@sun.com>
To: Assaf Arkin <arkin@intalio.com>
CC: Mark Little <mark.little@arjuna.com>, Ricky Ho <riho@cisco.com>, public-ws-chor@w3.org

>
>
>> <<Mark Little: Actually that's not strictly true. WS-Tx doesn't 
>> mention how contexts are
>> propagated at all at the application level (which is a bad thing for
>> interoperability and I'm certain will be changed in a new revision). 
>> So, you
>> an implementation is allowed to propagate a context back on replies 
>> in the
>> same way traditional TP systems do (e.g., the OTS).
>
> Arkin (I think): Although this is not written in the spec my 
> assumption is that you do always propagate the context back in 
> replies. But all you propagate in the context is the context identifir 
> and the registration service.
>
> In order to send back any other information about the participant 
> (i.e. it's state) you need to use a separate header, which based 
> solely on WSDL you can. But I'm afraid that unless an example is given 
> in the spec on how to do it, most systems will simply not do it, which 
> would create an interoperability problem. This can be fixed simply by 
> adding another paragraph and one short example where the reply 
> contains some state headed, like completed or failed.>>


On the last point and with respect to some recent discussion, I suggest 
we consider what implications exist if we assume that we trade state 
rather than it being understood at a global view.

Thanks.
Received on Friday, 23 May 2003 13:52:22 GMT

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