- From: Steve Ross-Talbot <steve@pi4tech.com>
- Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 08:25:40 +0000
- To: charlton_b@mac.com
- Cc: "Monica J. Martin" <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>, Martin Chapman <martin.chapman@oracle.com>, "'Gary Brown'" <gary@pi4tech.com>, "'WS-Choreography List'" <public-ws-chor@w3.org>
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. > > >
Received on Monday, 6 November 2006 16:51:11 UTC