- From: Andrew Berry <andyb@whyanbeel.net>
- Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 12:43:20 +1000
- To: "Cummins, Fred A" <fred.cummins@eds.com>
- Cc: "Burdett, David" <david.burdett@commerceone.com>, "'ygoland@bea.com'" <ygoland@bea.com>, "'Nickolas Kavantzas'" <nickolas.kavantzas@oracle.com>, "'Keith Swenson'" <KSwenson@fsw.fujitsu.com>, "'Monica Martin'" <monica.martin@sun.com>, "'Martin Chapman'" <martin.chapman@oracle.com>, "'Yves Lafon'" <ylafon@w3.org>, jdart@tibco.com, "'Ugo Corda'" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>, public-ws-chor@w3.org
On Thursday, August 21, 2003, at 12:12 AM, Cummins, Fred A wrote: > I agree with David's approach. I personally believe we should develop > a solution that has broad > application--it will survive longer and be more robust. However, if > you want to constrain the > solution to "web services," you need to define what "web services" > is/are. HTTP and SOAP > are current implementations. I expect this to evolve, and I expect > there will be other > techniques that should fit under the choreography and business process > specifications. I > am also concerned that I should be able to develop applications and > define business processes > that are independent ofhow their messages are exchanged--so they may > use "web services" > or MOM, transparently. +1 AndyB
Received on Saturday, 23 August 2003 22:41:30 UTC