W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-chor@w3.org > April 2005

Re: Proposal against issue 1001

From: Nickolas Kavantzas <nickolas.kavantzas@oracle.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 09:35:30 -0700
Message-ID: <51a501c545c6$f796e630$538e1990@us.oracle.com>
To: "Gary Brown" <gary@pi4tech.com>, "Steve Ross-Talbot" <steve@pi4tech.com>
Cc: "'WS-Choreography List'" <public-ws-chor@w3.org>

Hi Gary,

I think that what you've described below as a 'logical session' fits the CDL
choreography session type,
whereas in the case of a CDL conversation session one groups only message
exchanges and not actions:

a) In the WS-CDL spec, Section 2.4.7 Choreography Life-line, we have
specified how a choreo session
is initiated by using an ixn-initiator. A Choreo includes all types of
actions, including ixns.

b) In the WS-CDL spec, Section 2.3.4 Channel Types, we have defined that the
conversation session is
identified using the identity element of a channel.


As I said below, it is great that your proposal can be used for both types
of sessions. So, i propose to make
the following change by including a new attribute that indicates what the
identity element is used for:
    a) identifying a choreography instance
            or/and
    b) identifying a conversation instance



<channelType ...>
    <identity sessionType="choreography"|"conversation" >

    </identity>
    ...
</channelType>


Thanks,

--
Nick

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Gary Brown
To: Nickolas Kavantzas ; Steve Ross-Talbot
Cc: 'WS-Choreography List'
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 1:08 AM
Subject: Re: Proposal against issue 1001


Hi Nick

Firstly, in terms of our proposal, there is no difference between a
conversion and choreography session (as per your definitions) - all message
exchanges and actions are performed in the same 'global' session - i.e. it
is a logical session that spans across all participants in a choreography
that are actively involved in a particular business transaction instance.

Therefore it is not necessary to define them as separate concepts on the
channelType. The only thing that is required is to provide a clear
indication of what purpose an identity plays in relating a channel instance
to a session instance - which is what the "association", "derived".... types
are for in our spec.

BTW - cc'ed to public list as I think others need to get involved in this di
scussion, especially as there is not much time remaining.

Regards
Gary

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Nickolas Kavantzas
To: Gary Brown ; Steve Ross-Talbot
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 12:25 AM
Subject: Re: Proposal against issue 1001


Here is my simple clarification question:

What is a session? Is it a Conversation session,
a Choreography session, either, both?

In the case of a Conversation session, then this is
defined in CDL today as a collection of one or more
message exchanges (ixns).

In the case of a Choreography session, then this is
defined in CDL today as the performance of the actions
defined within a choreography definition.

IMHO, one session type is not mutually exclusive of the other and I think
that we can
use your latest proposal with some changes to accomodate both session types!



Below are examples:


<channelType chT1>
  <role="r1"/>

  <choreoSession>
     <token="OrderId">
  </choreoSession>
</channelType>

<channelType chT2>
  <role="r2"/>

  <choreoSession>
     <token="OrderId">
  </choreoSession>
</channelType>

<channelType chT3>
  <role="r3"/>

  <choreoSession>
     <token="OrderId">
  </choreoSession>

  <convSession>
     <token="SupplierId">
  </convSession>
</channelType>

<channelType chT4>
  <role="r4"/>

  <choreoSession>
     <token="OrderId">
  </choreoSession>

  <convSession>
     <token="SupplierId">
  </convSession>
</channelType>


<choreo a>
  <seq>
     <!-- this ixn i1 is a marked as a Choreography initiator interaction
and as such it
          initiates a choreo instance using the OrderId="12345" as the
          Choreo Instance Value -->
     <ixn name"i1" initiate="true">
        <ch1Var_chT1 OrderId="12345"/>
     </ixn>

     <!-- the ixns i2, i3 join the choreo inst above using the
OrderId="12345"
          as the Choreo Instance Value -->
     <ixn name"i2" >
        <ch2Var_chT1 OrderId="12345"/>
     </ixn>

     <ixn name"i3" >
        <ch3Var_chT2 OrderId="12345">
     </ixn>

     <par>
        <!-- the ixns i4, i4CB, i5, i5CB join the choreo inst above using
the OrderId="12345"
          as the Choreo Instance Value.

          Additionally:
            a) ixn i4 also initiates a new conversation session
               using the SupplierId="1" as the Conversation Inst Value
            b) ixn i4CB callbacks within the existing conversation session
               using the SupplierId="1" as the Conversation Inst Value

            c) ixn i5 also initiates a new conversation session
               using the SupplierId="2" as the Conversation Inst Value
            d) ixn i5CB callbacks within the existing conversation session
               using the SupplierId="2" as the Conversation Inst Value
          -->
        <seq>
         <ixn name"i4" >
           <ch4Var_chT3 OrderId="12345" SupplierId="1" />
         </ixn>

         <ixn name"i4CB" >
            <ch4CBVar_chT4 OrderId="12345" SupplierId="1" />
         </ixn>
        </seq>

        <seq>
         <ixn name"i5" >
           <ch5Var_chT3 OrderId="12345" SupplierId="2" />
         </ixn>

         <ixn name"i5CB" >
           <ch5CBVar_chT4 OrderId="12345" SupplierId="2" />
         </ixn>
        </seq>

     </par>
  </seq>
</choreo>


--
Nick

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Gary Brown
To: Nickolas Kavantzas ; Steve Ross-Talbot ; 'WS-Choreography List'
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 12:08 PM
Subject: Re: Proposal against issue 1001


Hi Nick

Actually the initial proposal in November is very similar to the current
proposal - they are both about how a channel instance is identified in the
context of a session instance.

I would prefer discussion through email.

Regards
Gary
----- Original Message ----- 
From: Nickolas Kavantzas
To: Steve Ross-Talbot ; 'WS-Choreography List'
Cc: Gary Brown
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 7:13 PM
Subject: Re: Proposal against issue 1001


Steve/Gary,


A) If i remember correctly, we spent ~1h discussing this isssue at the
Redwood Shores
F2F in Nov 2004 and at that time the proposals you guys made were all
about *session identity*:

1)  Correlation Issue: Pre-Proposal (Thursday, 11 November)
 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-chor/2004Nov/0052.html

2)  Correlation proposal (Thursday, 18 November)
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-chor/2004Nov/0070.html

3)  Updated correlation proposal (Friday, 19 November)
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-chor/2004Nov/0074.html


B) Then we spent ~1h in the Boston F2F discussing this new
proposal, which is not about session identity.

But, there were many questions/concerns raised by me, Martin, Charlton,
Abbie (the minutes should have this recording) regarding this approach.


I would like to understand why there is such a difference between the two
proposals you guys made?
We can have a bried discussion about this in today's call, or we can do it
through email.


Thanks,

--
Nick

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steve Ross-Talbot" <steve@pi4tech.com>
To: "'WS-Choreography List'" <public-ws-chor@w3.org>; "Nickolas Kavantzas"
<nickolas.kavantzas@oracle.com>
Cc: "Gary Brown" <gary@pi4tech.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 9:18 AM
Subject: Re: Proposal against issue 1001


Hi Nick,

Thanks (as ever) for you prompt response. I think that we have some mix
up along the line and I think this has caused a degree of confusion or
uncertainty around issue 1001. To be clear from our side the issue that
was raised was related to correlating multiple channel instances within
a choreography session - it was not about providing session identity.
This may be an issue in and of itself but is not central to issue 1001.
Issues relating to session identity we see as separate and if you wish
to raise them yourself then that is fine too.

The proposal addresses the issue that was raised (correlating multiple
channel instances), and is important in achieving endpoint monitoring
and end point generation. This is why we raised the issue in the first
place.

While we understand your points about sessions they are not required to
resolve issue 1001. Rather than mix these issues up let us concentrate
on issue 1001 and the proposal to resolve issue 1001. What we need from
you in particular and the group are comment raised against this
proposal, to enable us to either defend the proposal, or identify gaps
that need to be addressed as they relate to issue 1001.

Cheers

Steve T
>
>>
>> PROPOSAL:
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-chor/2005Feb/0032.html
>>
>> We would ask the WG members to raise issues against this proposal by
>> email rather than using a conf call.
>>
>> Best
>>
>> Steve T
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 20 April 2005 16:37:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 18 December 2010 01:01:30 GMT