- From: Monica J. Martin <monica.martin@sun.com>
- Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 21:59:00 -0600
- To: Assaf Arkin <arkin@intalio.com>
- CC: Ricky Ho <riho@cisco.com>, public-ws-chor@w3.org
> See inline ...... > I think this is the more generic principle, and we should look at this > as what can possibly be done in a very simple manner, and then work > out how much flexibility we really do want to allow. So the levels > would be: > > 1. An interaction with a role must include an identification of the > particular participant (most generic) > 2. An interaction with a role must include an identification of the > particular participant, but the participant is associated with the > role ahead of the interaction (e.g. by a previous step like an > assignment) and need to be re-associated to switch participants > 3. Same as above but the association can be done exactly once mm1: This creates challenges if you have an entity that acts in a chain of events first as the buyer and then as the seller (such as in an interaction with an OEM and then to a distributor). That's not to say they could not be multiple interactions as part of a larger choreography set. > 4. Same as above but the association must be done before the > choreography is started > > In my experience the language has the same level of complexity for > #1-#3, but is simpler for #4. #1 has more flexibility but required > more discipline than #2, I'm not sure there's a whole lot of > difference between the two. #3 allows you to do two different things > in parallel, but does not allow you do to the same thing n times in > parallel. > > arkin > > > >
Received on Wednesday, 23 April 2003 23:52:11 UTC