- From: Jon Dart <jdart@tibco.com>
- Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 15:39:36 -0700
- To: public-ws-chor@w3.org
I agree with Fred that the draft definition is complex and doesn't seem quite right. Among other things, it says "Definition of interfaces that express complex processes, and can, in essence, handle multiple 'threads' of execution simultaneously". I fail to see the connection between complex processes and threads of execution. Composition doesn't imply concurrency IMO. Composition in general implies the ability to construct complex artifacts from simpler parts. One aspect of this is the ability to hierarchically nest parts of a choreography definition (Assaf's recursive composition, mentioned already in the glossary). IMO a second aspect is this: Portions of the overall choreography definition are composable if it is possible to re-use those portions in another part of the choreography definition, or in another choreography definition. This commonly implies the ability to incorporate definitions by reference rather than by copy. --Jon
Received on Monday, 28 April 2003 18:39:47 UTC