Re: Exchange type issue

I concur with Charlton. It does not change the semantics and so has  
no major impact but does have a clear benefit of adding clarity to  
descriptions. Difficult to see why we should not do it.

Cheers

Steve T

On 5 Nov 2006, at 22:57, Charlton Barreto wrote:

>
> 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.
>
>
>