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

Re: Co-ordination protocol and BPEL

From: Assaf Arkin <arkin@intalio.com>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 11:04:55 -0700
Message-ID: <3ECD1147.2060306@intalio.com>
To: Mark Little <mark.little@arjuna.com>
CC: Ricky Ho <riho@cisco.com>, public-ws-chor@w3.org

Mark Little wrote:

>>If the scope is for a single activity than only that activity is
>>performed, but again after the reply is sent you still need to send
>>completed/exited/failed which you could potentially piggyback on the
>>reply message (though not allowed in WS-TX currently).
>Actually that's not strictly true. WS-Tx doesn't mention how contexts are
>propagated at all at the application level (which is a bad thing for
>interoperability and I'm certain will be changed in a new revision). So, you
>an implementation is allowed to propagate a context back on replies in the
>same way traditional TP systems do (e.g., the OTS).
Although this is not written in the spec my assumption is that you do 
always propagate the context back in replies. But all you propagate in 
the context is the context identifir and the registration service.

In order to send back any other information about the participant (i.e. 
it's state) you need to use a separate header, which based solely on 
WSDL you can. But I'm afraid that unless an example is given in the spec 
on how to do it, most systems will simply not do it, which would create 
an interoperability problem. This can be fixed simply by adding another 
paragraph and one short example where the reply contains some state 
headed, like completed or failed.


Received on Thursday, 22 May 2003 15:55:07 UTC

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