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

Re: Clarifying exchange type

From: Gary Brown <gary@pi4tech.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 09:04:19 +0100
Message-ID: <4541BD83.8030308@pi4tech.com>
To: "Monica J. Martin" <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>
CC: Martin Chapman <martin.chapman@oracle.com>, 'WS-Choreography List' <public-ws-chor@w3.org>

Hi Monica,

The ability to define notifications has been in the spec from day one. 
It is simply a case of defining an interaction that has just a 'Respond' 
exchange in it with no preceding 'Request' exchange (in the same or any 
other interaction activity).

The new 'Notify' exchange type that I am suggesting would not require 
any new semantics, as it is so similar to the 'Respond' exchange, 
although it does enable us to tighten up the semantics around the 
'Respond' exchange, to enable static validation to ensure that there is 
a matching 'Request' exchange, which is currently not possible,

So basically, at the moment it is possible to define notifications as 
well as responses, but a CDL description may define these so they are 
ambiguous and there is no way to statically validate whether they are 
correct. This change would also be advantageous in a Web Services 
deployment, as it clearly indicates whether WS notifications is 
required, and if not available would enable an organisation to 
understand that the CDL could not be implemented.

Regards
Gary


Monica J. Martin wrote:
>
>
>> Martin Chapman wrote: But nobody uses notifications, so doubt if one 
>> will ever be sent!
>> Also ws-addressing can be used to correlate a response with a request 
>> using
>> message-id.
>>
>> Martin.
>>  
>>
> Have to agree with Martin. And to add, are we ready to define the 
> semantics around notifications. Thanks.
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 27 October 2006 08:04:49 GMT

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