- From: Burdett, David <david.burdett@commerceone.com>
- Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2003 17:18:01 -0700
- To: "WS Choreography (E-mail)" <public-ws-chor@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <C1E0143CD365A445A4417083BF6F42CC053D1DB3@c1plenaexm07-b.commerceone.com>
We've been talking about whether or not we should specify how to do correlation, so I thought it would be a good idea to suggest some alternative ways of doing correlation together with their "pros and cons" so that we can, hopefully, make some type of objective decision on what, if anything, to do. Note that this problem does not apply just to correllation, but also how you identify the choreography type being performed, and the specific message (interaction) within a choreography type that a message represents - although I don't always mention this specifically in the descriptions below. So here are the five options I've thought of ... HEADER ONLY CORRELATION Put the correlation, choreography type, etc, in a header on the message (e.g. a SOAP header) Advantages: 1. Independent of the payload - works with any message format 2. Works with message payloads that do not contain any data that can be used for correlation, etc 3. Independent of the application that is processing the payload 4. Simple correlation mechanism Disadvantages: 1. If there is data in the payload that can also be used, then it might be inconsistent 2. Correlations might not be simple if there are many overlapping threads. BODY ONLY CORRELATION Use information for correlation, choreography type, etc. contained in the body of a message, e.g. an order Id in an order document. Advantages: 1. Re-uses "real" often, business derived, data. 2. No duplication or inconsistency possible Disadvantages: 1. Requires that the content and structure of the payload is understood before correlation, etc. can be done or checked 2. Ties correlation to a particular message format - means generalized correlation mechanisms can't be used 3. Requires the application does the correlation, choreography type checking etc, instead of payload-independent middleware doing instead BODY WITH HEADER REFERENCES Use information in the body (as in Body Only Correlation) but also provide "pointers" of some kind in a header (e.g. a SOAP header) which points to the where within the body the correlation information is contained. This is, I believe, the BPEL suggested approach. Advantages: 1. Potential for a generalized approach - payload-independent software can follow the references to find the data being referenced 2. Removes the need for the application to do correlation Disadvantages: 1. The different types and formats of the data being referenced and the payloads being used will significantly adds to the complexity of following message paths. 2. Probably restricted to XML payloads. For example if the payload was a PDF file then this would not work (no flames please for not requiring use of XML ! ) 3. Possible performance problems - especially if the message payloads are large. 4. Only works if the message is not encrypted. If the payload is encrypted then it might not be possible to resolve the reference BODY WITH HEADER COPY Use information in the body (as in Body Only Correlation) but this time *copy* the information from the body into a SOAP header. Advantages: 1. Independent of the message format 2. Removes the need for the application to do the correlation 3. No performance problems as payload does not need to be examined 4. The payload can be encrypted and only the data required for correlation copied to the header. Disadvantage: 1. Probably need to map the payload data (e.g. integer) to a standard external one in the header (e.g. string) 2. Duplicate data with potential for inconsistencies between the body and header versions of the correlation data BODY AND HEADER SEPARATE Use information in the body, but with separate, independently created, correlation, etc id's in the header Advantages: 1. Independent of the message format 2. No need for the application to do the correlation 3. No need to map between body and header formats 4. Same approach whether or not the body contains data that can be used for correlation 5. Header correlation information need bear no resemblance to the payload equivalent which may be encrypted 6. No performance problems as payload does not need to be examined Disadvantages: 1. Potential for inconsistencies between the header and body mechanisms for correlation 2. Does correlation twice in two different ways - in the header AND in the body. I hope I've thought of all the options - are there any more? I also hope I've covered all the advantages/disadvantages fairly - any comments? Now which is aprpoach is "best"? One of them? Some of them? All of them !!! Thoughts anyone ... I'll save mine for later ... David PS Should I copy this to the BPEL list? Director, Standards Strategy Commerce One 4440 Rosewood Drive, Pleasanton, CA 94588, USA Tel/VMail: +1 (925) 520 4422; Cell: +1 (925) 216 7704 < mailto:david.burdett@commerceone.com <mailto:david.burdett@commerceone.com> >; Web: < http://www.commerceone.com <http://www.commerceone.com/> >
Received on Wednesday, 3 September 2003 20:18:03 UTC