W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > October 2003

RE: A reworking of the message oriented model

From: Olivier Fehr <Olivier.Fehr@ofehr.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 23:47:15 +0200
Message-ID: <F92F63FC00C0AD4D88BECB3BCF90734B19FA@coyote.ofehr.com>
To: "Anders W. Tell" <opensource@toolsmiths.se>, "Francis McCabe" <fgm@fla.fujitsu.com>
Cc: <www-ws-arch@w3.org>

As I can see from the model, it just states 'message has messages path'.
No indication of multiplicity (I think that's the right term in UML).
There can be several of these message paths, so may this can be
interpreted as being either or both?

-----Original Message-----
From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Anders W. Tell
Sent: jeudi, 2. octobre 2003 23:37
To: Francis McCabe
Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org


There is difference between prescribed mesage path and actual message 
path (runtime), both may be of interest. Is this something that fits 
into the model ?


Francis McCabe wrote:

> This diagram represents an attempt to partially refactor the Message 
> Oriented Model.
> The essential difference here is to bring out that messages have 
> originators and ultimate recipients as well as senders and receivers; 
> and the structure of the message is closer to the SOAP model.
> It also brings out the role of the message transport a little more 
> clearly.
> Some notes:
> 1. Originator and ultimate recipient of a message are really 
> service-oriented concepts.
> 2. Correlation is a general concept, that applies elsewhere. The 
> general version of this is `counts-as' (as in this message counts as 
> the reply to your earlier message).
> 3. What is not captured here is the idea of a message processing 
> model. Is that necessary? It should be covered to some extent in the 
> written text
> Comments would be welcome
Received on Thursday, 2 October 2003 17:47:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:41:09 UTC