- From: Monica J. Martin <monica.martin@sun.com>
- Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2003 19:11:15 -0600
- To: Assaf Arkin <arkin@intalio.com>, public-ws-chor@w3.org
Assaf Arkin wrote: > > If you could receive assurance that the order will not be rejected we > could just write a choreography that has no 'rejected' message ;-) > > I suppose there are two ways to write the choreography. > > Option 1: > > - Case 1 (condition X): order rejected > - Case 2 (condition Y): order rejected > - Case 3 (otherwise): order accepted > > In this case some partners could expose information regarding > condition X that could allow you to decide definite cases where it > would be rejected, as in 'don't even bother sending this message'. > But there's also condition Y which is not exposed - it technically > cannot be exposed - e.g. rejected the order because the items are not > available, have just been recalled, or the seller's first name begins > with the letter 'A'. But there's an optimization you can do around > condition X. > > Option 2: > > - Case 1 (condition X): order rejected > - Case 2 (otherwise): order accepted > > (or in reverse condition X accepts and otherwise rejects) mm1: Assuming that only one condition determines the choreography step - which leads back to my question on business context.
Received on Sunday, 1 June 2003 21:02:08 UTC