- From: Monica J. Martin <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>
- Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 08:12:51 -0700
- To: Steve Ross-Talbot <steve@enigmatec.net>
- Cc: Tony Fletcher <tony.fletcher@choreology.com>, public-ws-chor@w3.org, Robin Milner <Robin.Milner@cl.cam.ac.uk>, "'Kohei Honda'" <kohei@dcs.qmul.ac.uk>, Nobuko Yoshida <yoshida@doc.ic.ac.uk>
> SRT: Modeling a distributed environment as two or more state machines > does have this state explosion problem because there is no way to > express the composed system. Process algebra doesn't suffer from the > same problem because it can be used to describe the external > observable behavior of the composed distributed system as a whole. > > What WS-CDL does is to have a rule that all end points involved are > part of an interact, which is a send and a receive (the pair together) > and in this way the interaction of the composed system is made explicit. mm1: Steve, the composed system still may include 1+ state machines. So, have we resolved Tony's question on how to handle the other than simple case? In addition, the 'composed' system is not isolated, and may be exposed to external events that affect the choreography. Does this also relate to our upcoming discussion, and your question, on channel passing? Thanks. > Fletcher: In the current version of CDL we do not seem to be > describing the process at each node then letting these interact > with the others, but describing the interactions directly. My > concern is that this approach will suffer from state space > explosion when one tries to include every conceivable message > sequence that could happen, and that actually the current CDL may > be fine for describing message sequence charts in XML (which is > useful but not I thought what we were attempting to achieve) which > are fine for illustrating message flows, but do not, in general, > cover every possible case the protocol designer needs to allow > for, but will become unwieldy / impossible to use for a complete > description. >
Received on Tuesday, 13 July 2004 11:19:34 UTC