- From: Steve Ross-Talbot <steve@enigmatec.net>
- Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 15:19:25 +0100
- To: WS-Choreography List <public-ws-chor@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <1387D639-0B10-11D9-A1F1-000393D13C9A@enigmatec.net>
Main agenda item will be to get a common understanding of WSDL and interaction in WS-CDL. I shall send a formal agenda later today. I do not intend to ask for any decisions and infact will rail against doing so in the absence of so many people from the call. To fuel the discussions for tomorrow I include the following: <start> In the last document I have for the spec (dated 16th August) it says: <start> 2.5.2 Interaction An Interaction is the basic building block of a Choreography, which results in the exchange of information between parties and possibly the synchronization of their states and the values of the exchanged information. An Interaction forms the base atom of the recursive Choreography composition, where multiple Interactions are combined to form a Choreography, which can then be used in different business contexts. An Interaction is initiated when a party playing the requesting Role sends a request message, through a common Channel, to a party playing the accepting Role. The Interaction is continued when the accepting party, sends zero or one response message back to the requesting party. This means an Interaction can be one of two types: A <emph>One-Way Interaction </emph>that involves the sending of a single message A <emph>Request-Response Interaction </emph>when two messages are exchanged </start> First of all this talks about a One-Way *Interaction* and a Request-Response *Interaction*. It does not specify a WSDL MEP anywhere in the text. There is also nothing described about how faults are defined for interaction and where they might come from. Thus nothing at the WSDL fault level is described which ties CDL to WSDL of any flavour. Given this is the case there is nothing to restrict the mapping of these *Interaction* patterns to the existing Interact language construct. A notification maps to a One-Way interaction (it is after all a single message). A solicit-response which is the reverse of request-response (it is after all two exchanged messages) to a Request-Response interaction which is just a pair of exchanged messages. I would suggest that the other MEP's in WSDL2.0 are variants of these and can be dealt with in a similar way. Thoughts? I have a service A1 and B1. A1 sends a request to B1 and B1 responds. Imagine an interact that describes this. Now supposing A2 and B2 do the same thing but B2 does something else after it receives the request which is hidden from A2 (not in the choreography). Then the request/response are async as opposed to that between A1 and B1 which may be sync. In my view the choreography, the interaction that describes this, does not change. All that changes is the bindings to the service definitions since one is sync and the other async. Does this make sense too? I enclose a note from Gary with further information/questions/examples:
</start>
Attachments
- application/rtf attachment: WSDL_v2.rtf
Received on Monday, 20 September 2004 14:19:41 UTC