- 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>
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