- From: Burdett, David <david.burdett@commerceone.com>
- Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 10:30:36 -0700
- To: "'Steve Ross-Talbot'" <steve@enigmatec.net>, public-ws-chor@w3.org
I agree with the separation of the choreography from its binding, however there are two ways to do it: 1. Reference the transport, message formats, security, etc from within the the CDL, which I think Yaron is suggesting, ... OR ... 2. Define a separate "Choreography Binding" that references the "Choreography Definition" as well as referencing the transport, message formats, security, etc I prefer the second as it allows multiple Choreography Bindings for a single Choreography Definition. Doing it the first way will *prohibit* reuse of the choreography. David -----Original Message----- From: Steve Ross-Talbot [mailto:steve@enigmatec.net] Sent: Monday, May 19, 2003 12:54 PM To: public-ws-chor@w3.org Subject: Fwd: Templating and what it is all for anyway ... Begin forwarded message: > From: "Yaron Y. Goland" <ygoland@bea.com> > Date: Mon May 19, 2003 7:35:49 pm Europe/London > To: "Steve Ross-Talbot" <steve@enigmatec.net> > Subject: RE: Templating and what it is all for anyway ... > > Templating - The idea that one should be able to define a cDl in such a > manner as to separate the message bindings (including message > transport and > syntax) from the choreography itself. In practice this should be > possible by > defining message transports/syntax by reference within a cDl. This > would > allow one to define a cDl and then change the references at run time > based > on local needs. > > Yaron > This email is confidential and may be protected by legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not copy or disclose its content but delete the email and contact the sender immediately. Whilst we run antivirus software on all internet emails we are not liable for any loss or damage. The recipient is advised to run their own antivirus software.
Received on Tuesday, 20 May 2003 13:30:44 UTC