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

Re: Exchange type issue

From: Gary Brown <gary@pi4tech.com>
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 18:43:17 +0000
Message-ID: <454F8245.108@pi4tech.com>
To: Martin Chapman <martin.chapman@oracle.com>
CC: charlton_b@mac.com, "'Monica J. Martin'" <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>, 'Steve Ross-Talbot' <steve@pi4tech.com>, 'WS-Choreography List' <public-ws-chor@w3.org>

Hi Martin,

It may be the case that there are no bindings for out-only/notify today, 
but that does not mean there will not be in the future.

The matter of bindings is also only in relation to WSDL. What about 
where CDL is used outside of the webservices context - e.g. asynchronous 
messaging?

Regards
Gary


Martin Chapman wrote:
> Gary,
>
> One of the problems there has been with out-only/notify exchanges is that no one has ever defined a binding for them.
> You seem to assume that you can use the same channel to send these notify messages, but that is not clear to me at all.
>
> Martin.
>
>   
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: public-ws-chor-request@w3.org 
>> [mailto:public-ws-chor-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Gary Brown
>> Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 2:37 PM
>> To: Martin Chapman
>> Cc: charlton_b@mac.com; 'Monica J. Martin'; 'Steve 
>> Ross-Talbot'; 'WS-Choreography List'
>> Subject: Re: Exchange type issue
>>
>>
>>
>> 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 18:44:19 GMT

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