W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-chor@w3.org > April 2004

Re: WS-CDL questions

From: Nickolas Kavantzas <nickolas.kavantzas@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 10:39:39 -0700
Message-ID: <407EC8DB.964A07F9@oracle.com>
To: Jean-Jacques Dubray <jeanjadu@Attachmate.com>
Cc: Steve Ross-Talbot <steve@enigmatec.net>, WS-Choreography List <public-ws-chor@w3.org>

Hi JJ,

Its good to have you back even after all this time. It would be nicer though to
have you in the group where you could help us with CDL ;->

Anyhow, you are raising some very interesting questions and as Steve has
said earlier we are going to log issues (if they don't already exist) based
on your feedback and all other feedback we get from the public list.

--
Nick

Jean-Jacques Dubray wrote:

> Interactions are bound to WSDL operations, as I understand the current
> draft. This implies a few things and some questions:
>
> WS-CDL must be associated to some abstract WSDL service definitions
> (port types but not ports)? Concrete WSDL defined by each participant
> must built on this abstract WSDL?
>
> Why specify a message type in the interaction? Why not in the associated
> WSDL? Could they be different? How do you guaranty that they cannot be
> different if specified in two different places?
>
> As I understand it, the only operations that will be referenced are
> One-Way and Request/Response, no Notifcation and Sollicite-Response will
> be needed/allowed? I understand why you do that, but this is a big
> departure from WSDL itself?
>
> A comment with respect to state alignment and work unit. It looks like
> the granularity at which isAligned() can be used is too big and that
> could defeat the purpose of work units along with state alignment which
> are otherwise very useful concepts. BPSS offers alignment at the message
> level (it is not because you received a message that this message is
> understood as valid and can be processed by the receiver). If no
> protocol is available to notify the sender of potential standard errors
> for each message, then these error notifications must be implemented in
> the choreography itself. This is not a satisfying solution, because you
> end up acking the ack. As I learned it, it is only through the use of
> widely agreed upon and structurally constant signals that you can really
> guarantee state alignment otherwise, I am under the impression that it
> will remain a wish rather than a fact.
>
> JJ-
Received on Thursday, 15 April 2004 13:40:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:01:03 UTC