W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-chor@w3.org > August 2003

RE: Off topic but relevant

From: Martin Chapman <martin.chapman@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 11:28:54 -0700
To: "'Martin Chapman'" <martin.chapman@oracle.com>, "'Burdett, David'" <david.burdett@commerceone.com>, "'Monica Martin'" <monica.martin@sun.com>, "'Yves Lafon'" <ylafon@w3.org>
Cc: <jdart@tibco.com>, "'Ugo Corda'" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>, "'Cummins Fred A'" <fred.cummins@eds.com>, <public-ws-chor@w3.org>
Message-ID: <004401c35d11$c2667e70$39ae2382@us.oracle.com>

p.s. correlation is already logged as issue 220:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=220

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-chor-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-ws-chor-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Martin Chapman
> Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 11:23 AM
> To: 'Burdett, David'; 'Monica Martin'; 'Yves Lafon'
> Cc: jdart@tibco.com; 'Ugo Corda'; 'Cummins Fred A'; 
> public-ws-chor@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Off topic but relevant
> 
> 
> 
> This is of course assuming a certain solution. 
> We should discus whether we would like a specific solution 
> (e.g. message
> ids) or a generic correlation 
> mechanism e.g like that found in BPEL, where any parts of a 
> message header or body can be defined as the 
> correlation "keys" for a particular choreography instance. 
> Lets discuss the relative merits and requirements 
> and then we can work out the appropriate actions and group(s) 
> to talk to.
> 
> Martin.
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-ws-chor-request@w3.org
> > [mailto:public-ws-chor-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Burdett, David
> > Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 8:47 AM
> > To: 'Monica Martin'; Yves Lafon; Burdett, David
> > Cc: 'jdart@tibco.com'; 'Ugo Corda'; Cummins Fred A; 
> > public-ws-chor@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: Off topic but relevant
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Monica
> > 
> > Perhaps this is something that should be done by XMLP - I
> > don't have a problem with that. However I think that the 
> > implementation of a solution that is using the choreography 
> > definition specification that this group will produce NEEDS 
> > information in the SOAP header such as Conversation Id, 
> > Message Id, etc.
> > 
> > This, in turn, makes our spec dependent on the existence of
> > such specs that we can reference in our own work.
> > 
> > So I think this IS an issue for us which means that perhaps
> > we should make it a formal liaison point/request with XMLP.
> > 
> > Does this make sense?
> > 
> > David
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Monica Martin [mailto:monica.martin@sun.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 6:51 AM
> > To: Yves Lafon; Burdett, David
> > Cc: 'jdart@tibco.com'; 'Ugo Corda'; Cummins Fred A;
> > public-ws-chor@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: Off topic but relevant
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > >>Burdett: 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.
> > >>    
> > >>
> > >
> > >Lafon: 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).
> > >  
> > >
> > >>Burdett: 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?
> > >>    
> > >>
> > >
> > >Lafon: I would be interested to see them, why not involve
> > XMLP as well?
> > >  
> > >
> > mm1: I believe, if only informally, this discussion has occurred in
> > XMLP.  Dave, can you please re-address this with XMLP and let us 
> > concentrate on what is our primary objective? Thanks.
> > 
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 7 August 2003 14:28:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:30:10 UTC