- From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 11:06:40 +0200 (MEST)
- To: "Burdett, David" <david.burdett@commerceone.com>
- cc: "'jdart@tibco.com'" <jdart@tibco.com>, "'Ugo Corda'" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>, Cummins Fred A <fred.cummins@eds.com>, public-ws-chor@w3.org
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, Burdett, David wrote: > Jon > > There's a whole bunch of things like "identification of choreography > instance" that can usefully be defined just once and then used by everybody. > I'd include in this the following additional information that needs to go in > a (SOAP) message (there are probably more): > 1. Message Id - a unique id for a message > 2. RefToMessage Id - a way of identifying an earlier message to which this > message relates - useful for identifying messages in error > 3. Conversation Id - which is really a choreography instance id as it > identifies a set of related messages > 4. Creation Time - the time a message was initially created > 5. Expiry Time - the time after which the recipient of a SOAP message should > no longer process it. Message Ids, and time information, although very useful may not be easy to define in an absolute manner. A requirement to have globally unique MsgIds is too restrictive to be acceptable, as some devices won't be able to generate them (and it puts restriction on choreographies using such Ids). > I've actually got a couple of specs that define the above as SOAP headers. > Is anyone interested in taking them further ... to OASIS perhaps ... on a > royalty free basis of course? I would be interested to see them, why not involve XMLP as well? Thanks, > > David > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jon Dart [mailto:jdart@tibco.com] > Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 3:51 PM > To: Burdett David > Cc: 'Ugo Corda'; Cummins Fred A; public-ws-chor@w3.org > Subject: Re: simultaneous execution > > > These are not new objectives. IMO the only issue is, some of the > facilities you were talking about (e.g. identification of choreography > instance) are not a standard part of WSDL nor of common message formats. > So there's potentially a problem there. One possibility (I think this > was suggested) is that we decide these are abstract properties and we > basically defer the problem of realizing them at a concrete message > level, which I could support. If you want to go in a different direction > than this, then I need convincing. > > --Jon > > Burdett, David wrote: > > I think we are actually agreed on two objectives: > > 1. The need to create choreography definitions that are indpendent of > > the message format, and > > 2. To define how choreography definitions are bound to Web Services and > > WSDL in particular. > > > > I don't think these objectives are mutually exclusive and we should be > > able to do both. Does anyone disagree? > > > > David > > > > -----Original Message----- > > *From:* Ugo Corda [mailto:UCorda@SeeBeyond.com] > > *Sent:* Wednesday, August 06, 2003 3:06 PM > > *To:* Cummins, Fred A; Burdett, David > > *Cc:* public-ws-chor@w3.org > > *Subject:* RE: simultaneous execution > > > >>+1 to defining how WS-Choreography binds to Web services. > > > >>The Charter specifically says: "The language(s) should build upon > > the foundation of the WSDL 1.2". > > > >>WSDL 1.2 defines interfaces and end points. If we don't at least > > define some precise mapping between WS-Choreography and WSDL > > interfaces, then I don't see in which >way we are building "upon the > > foundation of WSDL 1.2". > > [FAC] I believe we can do that without sacrificing broader > > applicability of the choreography. I'm more concerned that we not > > link the choreography to the message formats. > > > > If your concern is about about linking the choreography to the > > message formats on the wire, I would like to point out, as I have > > done before, that a portType/interface message structure does not > > imply any commitment to a format on the wire. It's only when the > > portType/interface is bound to a particular service that the wire > > format is defined. > > > > Ugo > > > > > -- Yves Lafon - W3C "Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras."
Received on Thursday, 7 August 2003 05:07:30 UTC