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).

Regards
Gary


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 GMT

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