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

Re: Clarifying exchange type

From: Monica J. Martin <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 13:35:03 -0700
To: Gary Brown <gary@pi4tech.com>
Cc: Martin Chapman <martin.chapman@oracle.com>, "'WS-Choreography List'" <public-ws-chor@w3.org>
Message-id: <45426D77.8040008@sun.com>

Gary Brown wrote:

>
> 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,

mm1: I agree we have a Respond exchange; however we may differ on 
whether or not this is a Notify.  Granted it may be similar to Respond; 
it may be Respond or, in other cases, its meaning may be very different 
from Respond. Perhaps this is a case to consider whether a Respond 
exchange is capable of specifying a Request match rather than 
differentiating with a Notify. I have opted not to explain the business 
level differences of a response or notify, as this has historically been 
outside of this WG scope.

> 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.

mm1: It appears that what you are asking for are more functions around 
what Respond may be. Thanks.
Received on Friday, 27 October 2006 20:35:17 GMT

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