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

Re: Clarifying exchange type

From: Gary Brown <gary@pi4tech.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 16:41:19 +0000
Message-ID: <45462B2F.1010902@pi4tech.com>
To: Kohei Honda <kohei@dcs.qmul.ac.uk>
CC: "Monica J. Martin" <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>, Martin Chapman <martin.chapman@oracle.com>, 'WS-Choreography List' <public-ws-chor@w3.org>

Hi Kohei

I don't think co-relation can be used as this would be dependent upon 
the contents of the messages, which cannot be relied upon to be distinct 
from a previous request. So I think the most appropriate approach is the 
new exchange action type, which makes it then consistent with the way 
other Message Exchange Patterns are described (i.e. explicitly).


Kohei Honda wrote:
> A bit confused with negation:
>> From this viewpoint, my question is: are there any these 
>> "request-reply" and its variants, including
>> notifications, which cannot be captured as a pattern of interaction, 
>> which can be made explicit by the
>> use of  co-relation identity?
> I meant, in the last clause: ..., which cannot be made explicit by the 
> use of co-relation identity?
> My question was, therefore: whether all can be captured by co-relation 
> (or session) identities or not.
> As written, even if all can, I do not oppose having explicit 
> constructs for specifying local (or micro)
> protocols.
> kohei
Received on Monday, 30 October 2006 16:42:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:01:09 UTC