- From: Monica Martin <monica.martin@sun.com>
- Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2003 16:02:32 -0600
- To: "Burdett, David" <david.burdett@commerceone.com>
- CC: "'Martin Chapman'" <martin.chapman@oracle.com>, "'Yves Lafon'" <ylafon@w3.org>, jdart@tibco.com, "'Ugo Corda'" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>, "'Cummins Fred A'" <fred.cummins@eds.com>, public-ws-chor@w3.org
Burdett, David wrote: > A very good point Martin - I was presuming "a" solution which is > perhaps premature. > > So let's do this the "right" way and think about it in terms of > requirements so here's my $0.02c on what they might be ... > > Requirement 1 > If a message is being sent between roles as part of the "performance" > of a choreography, then that message MUST identify the "choreography > instance" to which it belongs > > Requirement 2 > A choreography instance MAY be identified by specifying a unique > identifier in "metadata" (e.g. a SOAP header) associated with the message. > > Requirement 3 > A choreography instance MAY be identified by referencing a combination > of one or items of data in the "payload(s)" (e.g. the SOAP body and/or > attachments) of the message. > mm1: I would suggest on Reqt 2 and 3 that we specify the requirement not the solution, of which these requirements appear to do both. Particularly, a choreography instance may be referenced, - do we specify how? > To make these complete, we should also define, roles, performance, > choreography instance, metadata and payload, but that can come later! > > Thoughts? > > David >
Received on Thursday, 7 August 2003 17:59:46 UTC