- From: Monica Martin <monica.martin@sun.com>
- Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2003 14:56:30 -0600
- To: jdart@tibco.com
- CC: ygoland@bea.com, public-ws-chor@w3.org
>> Goland: Where I think the real confusion is coming is from the term >> 'control logic'. >> What I specifically mean is that when a web service has an option for >> which >> message it can send next then the logic the web service uses to >> choose must >> not be expressed in the choreography definition. > > Dart: What about something like an iteration facility (which is a very > simple example of control logic, IMO). If the iteration count is < 3, > you send a message, otherwise you don't. I think this is probably > necessary given the other requirements. > > mm1: There was some offline discussion in the F2F whether we should > keep the control logic separate or not. I think we need to discuss > this more fully and understand how enables the binding to choreography > instance (see conversation with Burdett, Cummins and I). I think you may very well need some type of business retry parameters in order to accommodate business requirements.
Received on Sunday, 17 August 2003 16:52:25 UTC