RE: Progressive Concreteness of Choreography binding

At 11:21 PM 4/2/2003 -0800, Patil, Sanjaykumar wrote:

>Ricky, I agree with all of your points.
>
>I also see how your design is more modular, but I guess I need to 
>understand a bit more the practical motivations behind/benefits of this design.
>
>Personally I was assuming the reason behind an abstract process in your 
>example was to support the choreography between multiple participants. I 
>guess a choreography between multiple participants can be defined by 
>laying out the sequence, the direction of message exchanges and the few 
>properties that drive the exchange of messages, etc (that is without 
>depending much on the service descriptions), and hence I thought the 
>abstraction in your example justifiable.

My motivation is NOT about bi-party vs multi-party collaboration, nor about 
"netural-view" vs "party-centric-view", nor about "choreography" vs 
"orchestration".
Going back to David Burdett's original message about reusing the "process" 
definition across different message structure.  I agree with that viewpoint 
and don't see WSDL/XSDL is abstract enough.


>However if the above was not precisely your motivation, then may I ask :-
>a> Do you have other scenarios in mind that would justify the additional 
>layer as necessary and not an unnecessary complexity.

This come quite natural in my mind but I don't know enough to give you 
another concrete example.  But I'm sure David has a lot.

>b> Whether the separation of choreography from orchestration would require 
>a similar kind of abstraction? Answering this one should probably be my 
>own exercise as it was my own doubt, but perhaps you have some comments!

I would think so.  I think WSCI have solved this problem already, although 
it is based on a party-centric view rather than a neutral view

Rgds, Ricky

Received on Thursday, 3 April 2003 02:44:36 UTC