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

Re: Exchange type issue

From: Steve Ross-Talbot <steve@pi4tech.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 15:27:32 +0000
Message-Id: <89BE0A76-5DF4-4663-914E-6EEEBD5ABEB8@pi4tech.com>
Cc: Martin Chapman <martin.chapman@oracle.com>, charlton_b@mac.com, "'Monica J. Martin'" <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>, 'WS-Choreography List' <public-ws-chor@w3.org>
To: Gary Brown <gary@pi4tech.com>

Having had to do it the way that Martin described I can testify to  
the complexity of description that this yields.

Cheers

Steve T

On 6 Nov 2006, at 14:36, Gary Brown wrote:

>
> Hi Martin
>
> I think this is dealing with a very specific situation - i.e. a  
> notification being sent without a previous request. This may well  
> be modelled using a channel from B to A, and send a request.
>
> However the situations I am primarily concerned with are the  
> situations where a dialogue is already under way between A and B, A  
> being the client and B being the server. B then wishes to notify A  
> of some change in situation. For this to be modelled using a  
> request from B to A, it would require a second channel to be  
> established in the CDL, and for the endpoint reference for A to be  
> passed to B as part of the preceding dialogue. This all complicates  
> the choreography unnecessarily, and creates a bi-directional  
> dependency between the client and server that may not be desirable.
>
> Regards
> Gary
>
>
> Martin Chapman wrote:
>> 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"?
>>
>>
>> Martin.
>>
>>
>>
>>> -----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.
>>>
>>> -Charlton.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 6 November 2006 15:48:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 18 December 2010 01:01:47 GMT