- From: Bob Haugen <rhaugen@speakeasy.net>
- Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 17:54:06 -0500
- To: <public-ws-chor@w3.org>, "Ricky Ho" <riho@cisco.com>
Ricky Ho wrote: > I think the "shared state" in this context means "shared visibility" rather > than "transactional update". In other words, it is OK to have one role > just update its state unilaterally and communicate that result to relevant > partners. Of course for certain business-specific process, the state > change may need co-ordination among partners (e.g. how do I know my PO has > been accepted). Those are exactly the kinds of state changes I have in mind. A PO is an offer to buy. Acceptance forms a contract. State changes to a contract need to be agreed upon by all parties to the contract. Call it what you will: transaction, coordination, synchronization, agreement... it's too common and critical to code adhoc every time. Shared visibility would be true for a REST model where all partners could GET a representation of the current state of all shared resources. Otherwise, all you got is messages over the wire and maybe an agreed state chart. The business transaction models I cited arose from those situations: contracts between partners, agreed or standardized state chart, state changes effected by message exchange in a set pattern. They're related to but not the same as private local transactions. I'm not advocating a particular solution in this message. Just raising the issue.
Received on Monday, 19 May 2003 18:56:26 UTC