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

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

From: Roberto Chinnici <Roberto.Chinnici@Sun.COM>
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 11:47:54 -0700
To: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Cc: "Amelia A. Lewis" <alewis@tibco.com>, jmarsh@microsoft.com, www-ws-desc@w3.org
Message-id: <3F79CFDA.7070709@sun.com>

Well at least when I said (per minutes) "Roberto:  The 4 are good, but
the multi patterns seem very fuzzy" I knew what I was talking about...

We'll do it again next time with 4 vs. 2 patterns.  ;-)

Roberto


Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
> ARGH! So all those hours we argued about 6 vs. 4 were because of
> a random pattern???!!! Hmm, gotta think again about the no-shoot
> rule. ;-)
> 
> OK, so where does this leave us? Back to 4 patterns, but more
> clarified? Boy, that was a slightly long route to clarifying
> what those patterns meant.
> 
> Welcome to standards ;-).
> 
> Sanjiva.
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Roberto Chinnici" <Roberto.Chinnici@Sun.COM>
> To: "Amelia A. Lewis" <alewis@tibco.com>
> Cc: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>; <jmarsh@microsoft.com>;
> <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 12:20 AM
> Subject: Re: Summary: 22-24 Sept 2003 WS Desc FTF
> 
> 
> 
>>Now that you mention it, I think that I proposed in-multi-out at the
>>Scottsdale f2f. It was simply meant to be an example of a pattern other
>>than the usual one-in/one-out ones. I can vaguely imagine some use for
>>it, like a stock ticker service (don't shoot me, please). Hopefully it
>>served some purpose in helping define the pattern framework, but I don't
>>think it (or the other "multi") deserve a place in the WSDL 1.2 spec.
>>
>>Roberto
>>
>>
>>Amelia A. Lewis wrote:
>>
>>>*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.
Received on Tuesday, 30 September 2003 14:46:30 GMT

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