W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-chor@w3.org > November 2006

Re: Exchange type issue

From: Gary Brown <gary@pi4tech.com>
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2006 17:18:15 +0000
Message-ID: <454B79D7.6050106@pi4tech.com>
To: "Monica J. Martin" <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>
CC: Charlton Barreto <charlton_b@mac.com>, Martin Chapman <martin.chapman@oracle.com>, 'WS-Choreography List' <public-ws-chor@w3.org>


Additional validation to detect such restrictions can be added in tools, 
if the target is WS-BPEL or any web service without support for 
notifications. This should not be a reason to restrict the capabilities 
of the language.


Monica J. Martin wrote:
>> Charlton Barreto wrote: Should it be illegal? While we agreed in 
>> issue X that a choreography should only "officially" support the use 
>> of in-only, in-out and robust in-only MEPs from WSDL 2.0, there's 
>> nothing as far as I can see in the spec that indicates that a 
>> choreography could not describe any of the WSDL 2.0 MEPs. This 
>> implies that we could support responses that wouldn't be matched to a 
>> request. If we have but one response in the choreo, and that is not 
>> matched to the initiating request, we in effect described an out-only 
>> with that choreo.
>> I agree with Gary that 'notify' is a suitable value for that exchange 
>> action type, because in this case we are describing a 
>> 'notification'/out-only MEP with the choreo.
>> -Charlton.
>>> On Friday, November 03, 2006, at 02:34PM, "Martin Chapman" 
>>> <martin.chapman@oracle.com> wrote: In 1), why would we ever allow a 
>>> response that has not had a preceeding request? This should be 
>>> illegal! The only chellange is being
>>> able to match a response with a request. We could also allow fancy 
>>> patterns such as one request and mutiple responses (of same or 
>>> different type) without introducing this "notify" flag.
>>> Martin.
> mm1: This relates to previous discussions we had a conscious decisions 
> about the explicit MEP supported. One comment related to this to 
> consider is that WS-BPEL specifically prohibits the use of this 
> pattern and any definition that includes it is rejected in static 
> analysis. This may create an incompatibility in endpoint generation if 
> WS-BPEL is the target. Thanks.
Received on Friday, 3 November 2006 17:18:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:01:09 UTC