W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > January 2004

Re: in-optional-out?

From: Amelia A Lewis <alewis@tibco.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 14:52:21 -0500
To: ygoland@bea.com
Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org, "'Sanjiva Weerawarana'" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, "'David Orchard'" <dorchard@bea.com>
Message-id: <51CCD3C5-5102-11D8-81D8-0050E416A465@tibco.com>

Looks good to me (speaking as one of the part 2 editors).

Jonathan, can you stick a request to discuss adding this to part two 
into the schedule somewhere?  I don't know whether adding such a thing 
is likely to be a quickie or not ....

Amy!
On Jan 27, 2004, at 2:38 PM, Yaron Goland wrote:

> 3.X In-Optional-Out
>
> This pattern consists of one or two messages, in order, as follows:
>
>    1. A message:
>           * indicated by a Message Reference component whose
> {messageReference} is 'A' and {direction} is 'in'
>           * received from some node N
>    2. An optional message:
>           * indicated by a Message Reference component whose
> {messageReference} is 'B' and {direction} is 'out'
>           * sent to node N
>
> This pattern uses the rule 2.2 Message Triggers Fault.
>
> An operation using this message pattern has a {pattern} property with 
> the
> value 'http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/wsdl/in-opt-out'.
>
> Would that work?
> 	Thanks,
> 		Yaron
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]On
>> Behalf Of Sanjiva Weerawarana
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 1:58 AM
>> To: Amelia A Lewis; David Orchard
>> Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
>> Subject: Re: in-optional-out?
>>
>>
>>
>> +1
>>
>> (No, not to the nuisance part but the process part ;-))
>>
>> Sanjiva.
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Amelia A Lewis" <alewis@tibco.com>
>> To: "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>
>> Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 2:18 AM
>> Subject: Re: in-optional-out?
>>
>>
>>>
>>> If you want it, write it up and propose it to the group for
>> inclusion.
>>> If you can convince enough folks, it'll likely go in.
>>>
>>> out-optional-in is there because I made a nuisance of myself.
>>>
>>> Amy!
>>> On Jan 26, 2004, at 3:00 PM, David Orchard wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> There is an out-optional-in but what about in-optional-out?
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Dave
>>>>
>>
>>
>
Received on Tuesday, 27 January 2004 14:52:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:28 GMT