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

RE: Exchange type issue

From: Martin Chapman <martin.chapman@oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 14:15:57 -0000
To: <charlton_b@mac.com>, "'Monica J. Martin'" <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>
Cc: "'Steve Ross-Talbot'" <steve@pi4tech.com>, "'Gary Brown'" <gary@pi4tech.com>, "'WS-Choreography List'" <public-ws-chor@w3.org>
Message-ID: <00c201c701ae$155d45c0$5e51908d@ie.oracle.com>

Can someone please tell me the real difference between a notify and a in-only? If I have two participants A and B, when and why
would I use notify instead of in-only if B needs to interact with A without a preceeding "request"?


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Charlton Barreto [mailto:charlton_b@mac.com] 
>Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2006 10:57 PM
>To: Monica J. Martin
>Cc: Steve Ross-Talbot; Martin Chapman; 'Gary Brown'; 
>'WS-Choreography List'
>Subject: Re: Exchange type issue
>Monica J. Martin wrote:
>>> Steve Ross-Talbot wrote: Monica,
>>> 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.
>>> Cheers
>>> Steve T
>> We have yet to consider that the only difference is the 'respond' is
>> not tied to a 'request.' Therefore, this could be accommodated by 
>> allowing a respond that may or may not be tied to a request. As Gary 
>> said there is no other difference.  Thanks.
>True, there is no other difference. However, having the new exchange 
>type makes explicit the exchange pattern represented by the choreo. As 
>there is no semantic difference, I see no logical reason not 
>to have the 
>new exchange type.
Received on Monday, 6 November 2006 15:19:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:01:10 UTC