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

Re: Exchange type issue

From: Steve Ross-Talbot <steve@pi4tech.com>
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 19:24:13 +0000
Message-Id: <11E6B0B5-D7BF-42FF-B17E-50440792B8A8@pi4tech.com>
Cc: Charlton Barreto <charlton_b@mac.com>, Martin Chapman <martin.chapman@oracle.com>, "'Gary Brown'" <gary@pi4tech.com>, "'WS-Choreography List'" <public-ws-chor@w3.org>
To: Monica J. Martin <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>


I take your point about religiosity. As regards clarity around the  
new exchange type and semantics I do not think it changes the  
semantics of anything in WS-CDL at all. Rather it makes explicit  
something that is today implicit. So in a sense it tidies things up.


Steve T

On 3 Nov 2006, at 22:52, Monica J. Martin wrote:

>> Steve Ross-Talbot wrote: I think the BPEL thing is a red herring.  
>> We have always been able to  model or describe more than BPEL can  
>> handle. Our concept of channel  identity is not supported by BPEL  
>> (from memory) and is much richer  than BPEL.
>> The ability to have a response with not matching request is in- 
>> built  into WS-CDL and always has been. What we match is not  
>> request/ response but send/receive - and interaction. A request  
>> and a response  can be modeled as two explicit interactions but  
>> can, as a  convenience, be modeled in a single interaction. If we  
>> have them  explicit then implementors can choose how to match  
>> (usually on  operation name) but I do not think this is mandatory.  
>> When we have a  request and a response in a single interaction the  
>> operation names  are by definition matched - they share the same  
>> operation name.
>> A notification exchange type makes explicit a pattern which in  
>> turn  provides clarity of description. It becomes clear as to the  
>> intent.  And this can only be a good thing. Just because BPEL  
>> doesn't support  it doesn't mean we should not. Just because many  
>> Web Service stacks  do not support it does not mean we should not.  
>> One day they may well  support it and so by supporting what is in  
>> the standards and what the  wider non-web service community use  
>> ensures we achieve one of our  goals, namely that we all want WS- 
>> CDL to have wider utility than  current tools provide today and  
>> wider utility outside of a strictly  web service environment -  
>> hence the optional role interface in WS-CDL.
> mm1: I just made an observation to consider in the total scope of  
> our discussion, not to create a religious war (for others than  
> myself). As far as the exchange type, we need to discuss in detail  
> whether the issue is the need for a new exchange type or  
> reconsideration of the semantics and constraints of the current  
> 'respond.' I'm anxiously awaiting this final observation to be  
> addressed. Thanks.
Received on Sunday, 5 November 2006 19:25:57 UTC

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