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

Re: Coordinated Choreographies Proposal 3 - Multiple Finalizers

From: Nickolas Kavantzas <nickolas.kavantzas@oracle.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 11:36:24 -0800
Message-ID: <065d01c4c1dc$674fb7a0$48af2382@us.oracle.com>
To: "Gary Brown" <gary@enigmatec.net>, "Haugen Robert" <Robert.Haugen@choreology.com>, <public-ws-chor@w3.org>

see comment below about the way the finalizer block syntax/semantics are
proposed (I made the same comment
in the NY F2F).

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Gary Brown" <gary@enigmatec.net>
To: "Haugen Robert" <Robert.Haugen@choreology.com>; <public-ws-chor@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 3:32 AM
Subject: Re: Coordinated Choreographies Proposal 3 - Multiple Finalizers


>
> Hi Bob,
>
> Regarding the use of the 'name' attribute on the finalizer - just
wondering
> whether it would be more appropriate to have an additional attribute
(which
> I seem to remember seeing in a previous version of this proposal as
'case'),
> which would have a well defined list of values, as opposed to being
> completely free-format.
>
<NK>
It seems that there is an inconsistency between the way an Exception Block
is
defined today in CDL and how its Exception WorkUnits are considered for
matching a fault
and the way you propose the Finalizer block should be defined. As I said in
the NY F2F
wouldn't be better if the two mechanisms were made more similar?
</NK>
> Is there a stable list of finalizer types that you have in mind, or do you
> need it to be completely extensible? e.g. confirm, cancel, close, etc.
>
> Regards
> Gary
>
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 3 November 2004 19:37:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 18 December 2010 01:01:10 GMT