W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-desc-meps@w3.org > June 2003

Re: agenda for today's MEP call

From: Amelia A. Lewis <alewis@tibco.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 10:41:54 -0400
To: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Cc: dbooth@w3.org, public-ws-desc-meps@w3.org
Message-Id: <20030617104154.73671f86.alewis@tibco.com>

I don't believe that the requirements put forward by SOAP/XMLP are what
is driving the attempt to better define patterns.  I believe that the
primary drivers come from the folks who are creating tools that generate
client stubs.  The primary argument seems to be that, if an input/output
pattern is defined using only direction, cardinality, and sequence, then
the client cannot expect to get a response, to be the only person
getting a response, and may receive responses without sending requests.

I believe that choreography languages could probably also benefit from
better definition of where messages go ("out" from the service may not
be enough), or where they come from (if those languages use WSDL as a 
base, that is).

Amy!
On Tue, 17 Jun 2003 20:30:19 +0600
"Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com> wrote:

> 
> Out of curiosity- does the SOAP request-response MEP also
> distinguish the cases as indicated below? If so I guess
> we have to too. If not, if they can live with it why can't
> we?
> 
> For example, to me a request-response MEP can be bound
> to a same channel interaction or a multiple channel
> interaction. Both are still the same MEP though.
> 
> Sanjiva.
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Booth" <dbooth@w3.org>
> To: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>;
> <public-ws-desc-meps@w3.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 2:23 AM
> Subject: Re: agenda for today's MEP call
> 
> 
> > Sanjiva,
> >
> > The patterns we are discussing are merely variations on the same basic
> > patterns that we have discussed for months.  We are discussing these
> > variations in order to explicitly nail down subtle differences in the ways
> > these patterns could be defined.  For example:
> >          - whether or not a particular message transmission assumes
> > conservation of messages
> >
> >          - whether or not the sender/receiver of a message is specified
> (as
> > a variable)
> >          - whether or not the message communication is restricted to being
> > "on the same channel".
> >
> > As the mpes-vs-iops[1] document states: "Inclusion in this list does not
> > imply endorsement or recommendation by this task force or the working
> group."
> >
> >
> > 1.
> >
> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl12/meps-vs-iops/meps-vs
> -iops_clean.htm
> >
> > At 09:18 PM 6/16/2003 +0600, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
> > >More patterns?? So are we really going to have > 10 patterns?
> > >IMHO this is going entirely in the wrong direction if we keep
> > >adding more patterns. I supported the MEP concept but never
> > >expected we'd be having 10 MEPs in the document.
> > >
> > >I'm sorry to say that I can't join this call tonite .. its a
> > >bit late for me.
> > >
> > >Sanjiva.
> > >
> > >----- Original Message -----
> > >From: "David Booth" <dbooth@w3.org>
> > >To: <public-ws-desc-meps@w3.org>
> > >Sent: Monday, June 16, 2003 9:08 PM
> > >Subject: agenda for today's MEP call
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Agenda for today's MEP call (1:00-2:30pm EDT):
> > > >
> > > > A. New patterns from Amy?
> > > >
> > > > B. The pattern p2 family in meps-vs-iops[1]
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 1.
> > > >
> >
> >http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl12/meps-vs-iops/meps-v
> s
> > >-iops_clean.htm
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > David Booth
> > > > W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard
> > > > Telephone: +1.617.253.1273
> >
> > --
> > David Booth
> > W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard
> > Telephone: +1.617.253.1273
> 


-- 
Amelia A. Lewis
Architect, TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc.
alewis@tibco.com
Received on Tuesday, 17 June 2003 10:41:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Friday, 25 March 2005 11:17:39 GMT