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

RE: SOA proposed text - harvesting previous threads

From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) <RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 12:00:19 -0500
Message-ID: <7FCB5A9F010AAE419A79A54B44F3718E03132775@bocnte2k3.boc.chevrontexaco.net>
To: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>, www-ws-arch@w3.org

Yes, that looks fine to me.

About the intense feelings on state management -- yeah, but it seems to
me that (with perhaps a few exceptions) when you get down to the nub
everybody seems to be saying just about the same thing.  The differences
seem to be in tone of voice, perception of importance or verbal style.
I honestly don't see a trout pond here unless one tries to make some
more general philosophical statement than we should perhaps be involved
with.  It seems to me that what you say is more or less just describing
what is actually going on in the real world.  Whether what is happening
is wonderful or regretable is another matter probably best left

-----Original Message-----
From: Champion, Mike [mailto:Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com] 
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 11:52 AM
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: SOA proposed text - harvesting previous threads


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)
> [mailto:RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 12:21 PM
> To: Champion, Mike; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: SOA proposed text - harvesting previous threads
> Oops, sent without intending to.  I have edited in-line here ...
> In general, it seems to me that quite a number of people have
> essentially been in agreement here about what needs to be 
> said, and that it is important not to have bald statements 
> about statelessness which may be literally correct but which 
> may leave a misimpression for those interested in stateful 
> interactions.

Hmm, I liked the idea of adding something like:

"Stateful service interactions such as those involving coordination,
transactions, choreography, authentication/authorization, etc. can be
defined at the software layer above the services themselves. This layer
may be in the top layer application, or it may be a higher level of the
service infrastructure, as in the case of, for example,
WS-Coordination, WS-Transaction, WSBPEL, etc."

That would go at the end of the "state management" paragraph in the Best
Practices section.

Is that more or less what you had in mind?

If this turns into a trout pond, I'm tempted to emulate Werner Vogels
and just drop "state management" because there is such intense religious
feeling on the subject :-)
Received on Thursday, 11 September 2003 13:00:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:41:08 UTC