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

Re: Summary: 22-24 Sept 2003 WS Desc FTF

From: Amelia A. Lewis <alewis@tibco.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 10:03:26 -0400
To: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Cc: jmarsh@microsoft.com, www-ws-desc@w3.org
Message-id: <20030930100326.3e478d65.alewis@tibco.com>

*shrug*

Probably.  But outbound-first is unrelated to the "multis".  The
"multis" are in-multi-out, assuming only two participants, with the
service streaming messages until it (somehow) decides to stop, and
out-multi-in, assuming only two participants, with the
[not-acting-as-a-service-participant] replying to a single question from
the service with a barrage of answers, one after the other.

Whatever those were intended, they were not proposed or advocated by
TIBCO, and I can't defend them because I don't understand them, and
don't see any use in them.

I wasn't asked to supply justification for the outbound-first
operations, which TIBCO *has* advocated, strongly.  The disappearance of
the old multicast solicit response is a result of changes in the
definitions, such that the outbound-first operations are now,
theoretically (apart from the trifling problem that fault replaces
message is probably inappropriate), modeled by existing outbound-first
patterns.

Amy!
On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 19:56:40 +0600
Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com> wrote:

> 
> "Amelia A. Lewis" <alewis@tibco.com> writes:
> > 
> > The "multis" are not multicast-related, and I was never a proponent
> > of them.  I do not, in fact, understand what networking paradigm
> > they are thought to embody, or who has advocated them.
> > 
> > The "multis" appear to be serial unicast: a trigger message starts a
> > flow of messages from some other participant, which eventually
> > stops.  I feel certain that someone has a reason for proposing such
> > patterns, but it wasn't me, and I don't know what the reason was or
> > is.
> 
> I'm confused Amy .. I recall that Tibco and MSFT had different
> interpretations of the old outbound operations and I had always
> thought that that difference was recognized by these two patterns.
> 
> Is that not the case? Is there another pattern we should be 
> including that has a single outbound / single inbound combination
> yet does something different that we should be including?
> 
> Sanjiva.
> 
> 


-- 
Amelia A. Lewis
Architect, TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc.
alewis@tibco.com
Received on Tuesday, 30 September 2003 10:03:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:26 GMT