- From: Steve Ross-Talbot <steve@enigmatec.net>
- Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 14:42:28 +0100
- To: Nickolas Kavantzas <nickolas.kavantzas@oracle.com>
- Cc: public-ws-chor@w3.org
Nick, here are the comments that I have already sent to you wrt to Oracle contribution. I now share them as a matter of record. My main issue with the spec is that it involves active participation in the choreography between participants, which means that legacy webservices are not going to be able to be included, which will limit the take up. It also does not 'extend' or build upon existing web service interactions (i.e. message exchanges). Instead it defines the concept of shared state between participants, which needs to be synchronized before associated interactions can be triggered. This is very ECA like, as opposed to passive monitoring of workflow. I don't think state information should be visible outside the web service, other than the information provided as part of a message exchange. My preferred choreography notation would simply define a workflow coordination of high level message types, which reference the actual message types in the WSDL interfaces. Also, I think it would be better to approach the problem by defining a collection of short lived stateful choreographies, that when they are each performed, obtain the relevant business context as part of their initial interactions (e.g. first request should provide a reference/customer id, etc. - which is the same model as most human and electronic interactions in today's business/web). This can also be mapped on to the more short lived connection oriented approach. I think the language should be in support of a passive approach, acting as a definition of an agreed collaboration, which can then be used to (1) help construct the individual (decoupled) participant web services, based on the observable behaviour they must exhibit, and then (2) used by each participant to verify that they (and their partners) are correctly implementing the choreography. A central mechanism for policing the choreography is not required if each participant (that is interested in obeying the choreography definition) has the necessary checks defined in their local implementations - which can be aided by the use of tools that understand the external observable behaviour that is required. Cheers Steve T On Thursday, September 11, 2003, at 12:08 am, Nickolas Kavantzas wrote: > > Oracle would like to submit a document for consideration by the W3C > Choreography Working Group. > > This is being provided under the normal W3C IPR rules. > > The document can be found at: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2003Sep/att-0018/ > wscdl_v1.zip > > We would like to request time on next's week F2F agenda for presenting > an overview of this submission. > > -- > Regards, > > Nick and Jeff > > > 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. > 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 Monday, 13 October 2003 09:42:32 UTC