W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-chor@w3.org > May 2003

Re: Straw-man Proposal for our mission statement

From: Assaf Arkin <arkin@intalio.com>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 10:21:34 -0700
Message-ID: <3ECBB59E.9010208@intalio.com>
To: Jean-Jacques Dubray <jjd@eigner.com>
CC: "'Yaron Y. Goland'" <ygoland@bea.com>, "'Burdett, David'" <david.burdett@commerceone.com>, Daniel_Austin@grainger.com, public-ws-chor@w3.org

What about the alternative of binding the BPSS to WSDL, like:

<wsdl:binding ...>
  <wsdl:operation ...>
    <bpss:transaction name="..." role="..." .../>

You already have the binding framework which is used with a variety of 
protocols including SOAP, HTTP, IIOP, etc, with a variety of componet 
access (see WSIF), and so forth. So instead of reinventing all these 
bindings in WS Choreo, how about we just add another binding to WSDL to 
address BPSS transactions?


Jean-Jacques Dubray wrote:

>The cost of abstraction is way overestimated here. The abstraction is
>already built, it is called a message and a message exchange pattern.
>Now we have the choice to directly use the WSDL message definition or
>rather define something like:
><message name="ProcessPO">
><message name="AckPO>
><mep name="ProcessPO">
><binding message="ProcessPO" type="WSDL" version="1.2">
>		<portType="">
><binding MEP="ProcessPO" type="ebXML" version="2.0>
>	<businessTransactionActivity name="ProcessPO>
><binding message="AckPO" type="PlainOldFax" >
>	<fax number="555-1234"/>
>so please, let's reasonable on our assertions.
>I am currently on travel in beautiful Berlin, with limited email and web
>access. So I will respond more thoroughly to the emails this week-end.
Received on Wednesday, 21 May 2003 13:25:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:30:05 UTC