- From: Mark Little <mark.little@arjuna.com>
- Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 09:54:58 +0100
- To: "Assaf Arkin" <arkin@intalio.com>, "Burdett, David" <david.burdett@commerceone.com>
- Cc: <jdart@tibco.com>, <public-ws-chor@w3.org>
+1. And if you look at the recent WS-CAF specifications you'll see that there is a separate context service definition precisely because of this. Mark. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Assaf Arkin" <arkin@intalio.com> To: "Burdett, David" <david.burdett@commerceone.com> Cc: <jdart@tibco.com>; <public-ws-chor@w3.org> Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 10:58 PM Subject: Re: simultaneous execution > > I'll have to side with Jon on this. Correlation is a generic and > flexible mechanism that can also be used for that. A more specific > mechanism would be too narrow in scope and would impose some > limitations. Since we're dealing with WS in general, and not > specifically PO scenarios, let's have the more generic mechanisms. > > arkin > > Burdett, David wrote: > > >If all you have is a request response over the same channel, then I agree it > >is not necessary unless that request response is part of a larger and longer > >interaction. > > > >But if you do need to do this, it is hardly rocket science and has also been > >done in other specs such as ebXML messaging. > > > >What we really want to do is have one *definitive* way of providing this > >functionality. Now identifying which choreography you are following is > >definitely, IMO, part of our scope. However identifying that a set of > >messages are related is broader as you could have some sort of "correlation > >identifier" without specifing the choreography which being followed. > > > >David > > > > > > >
Received on Monday, 4 August 2003 04:55:36 UTC