Re: Proposal for choreography composition

> mm1: The conversation continues, on the 'perform' evaluation on
> choreography composition. These questions and issues you raise touch on
> my previous questions about our recognition of, visibility to, and
> dependencies evident in choreography and sub-choreographies. We
> discussed this in the F2F in Cannes where we only acknowledged the outer
> not the inner box [1]. In your proposed solution, I have two questions:
>
>     * You bind the roles in the relationship between the inner and outer
>       choreographies. Therefore, if bound in a relationship over a
>       channel, the partner cannot change roles in the sub-choreography.
>       This would require a different composed choreography if the buyer
>       assumes another role in the inner (sub-)choreography correct?

gb: This depends on whether the new role is related to the interface with
the outer choreography - and/or whether the bound relationship's
interactions are affected by the change. If the sub-choreography is simply
being enhanced to provide more functionality, but the outer choreography
still only requires its existing functionality from the sub-choreography,
then everything should still be ok - hope this is answering your question,
if not we can discuss on the conf call.

>     * Payment Process and Goods Distribution are separate transactions
>       that relate to exchanges that may be bounded by business
>       agreements (thus separating fulfillment responsibilities). Can we
>       provide traceability and error functions when this compositional
>       capability occurs? Perhaps this will be discussed in Tony's
>       submission.

I think these boundaries would partially be based on how the
sub-choreography was defined. If the sub-choreo includes the notion of
transaction support between the participant (that will be bound with the
outer choreo) and the other participants - then I guess the outer choreo
could extend this transactional boundary in whatever ways it requires.
Something to think about with Tony's transaction submission......


>
> Thanks and I look forward to the discussion.
>
> [1] I think we discussed blue and red boxes but I don't remember which
> was inner or outer.
>
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 13 July 2004 14:28:07 UTC