- From: Assaf Arkin <arkin@intalio.com>
- Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 14:58:36 -0700
- To: "Burdett, David" <david.burdett@commerceone.com>
- CC: jdart@tibco.com, public-ws-chor@w3.org
I'll have to side with Jon on this. Correlation is a generic and flexible mechanism that can also be used for that. A more specific mechanism would be too narrow in scope and would impose some limitations. Since we're dealing with WS in general, and not specifically PO scenarios, let's have the more generic mechanisms. arkin Burdett, David wrote: >If all you have is a request response over the same channel, then I agree it >is not necessary unless that request response is part of a larger and longer >interaction. > >But if you do need to do this, it is hardly rocket science and has also been >done in other specs such as ebXML messaging. > >What we really want to do is have one *definitive* way of providing this >functionality. Now identifying which choreography you are following is >definitely, IMO, part of our scope. However identifying that a set of >messages are related is broader as you could have some sort of "correlation >identifier" without specifing the choreography which being followed. > >David > >
Received on Thursday, 31 July 2003 17:59:49 UTC