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

RE: Revised Asynch Binding

From: Ugo Corda <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 09:08:43 -0700
Message-ID: <EDDE2977F3D216428E903370E3EBDDC9032B8B58@MAIL01.stc.com>
To: <paul.downey@bt.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

Yes, it is a higher level mechanism. My example was just a response to
your request for a use-case which has one mechanism for addressing and a
different one for message correlation. My point, again, is that it is
better to keep addressing and correlation (which are both required for
asynch messaging) conceptually separate, even though some specs allow
them to be combined in the same mechanism.

Ugo

> -----Original Message-----
> From: paul.downey@bt.com [mailto:paul.downey@bt.com] 
> Sent: Monday, July 12, 2004 5:47 AM
> To: Ugo Corda; sanjiva@watson.ibm.com; www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Revised Asynch Binding
> 
> 
> Ugo wrote:
> > Correlation could also be based on particular content of the
> > exchanged message having some business significance, for example 
> > request and response sharing the same value for the purchase order. 
> > This is a mechanism used extensively in BPEL, for example, and is 
> > independent from the addressing mechanism used.
> 
> This seems to be another much higher level of correlation 
> than required just to group messages into a single WSDL MEP. 
> Maybe it's just the words 
> "business significance" and "BPEL", but this does sound more like a 
> choreography or work-flow to me - something more usually 
> layered above 
> several operations and beyond the scope of a WSDL correlation 
> "feature".
> 
> Paul
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 12 July 2004 12:09:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:32 GMT