- From: Tony Fletcher <tony_fletcher@btopenworld.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 21:55:56 -0000
- To: "'Gary Brown'" <gary@enigmatec.net>, <public-ws-chor@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <001f01c51abb$9ebb78e0$6401a8c0@corp.choreology.com>
Dear Gary,
Thank you for a thoughtful response - as always from you. I have embedded a
few responses below.
Best Regards Tony
A M Fletcher
Cohesions (TM)
Business transaction management software for application coordination
www.choreology.com <http://www.choreology.com/>
Choreology Ltd., 68 Lombard Street, London EC3V 9LJ UK
Tel: +44 (0) 1473 729537 Mobile: +44 (0) 7801 948219
tony.fletcher@choreology.com (Home: amfletcher@iee.org)
-----Original Message-----
From: Gary Brown [mailto:gary@enigmatec.net]
Sent: 24 February 2005 19:30
To: Tony Fletcher; public-ws-chor@w3.org
Subject: Re: Issue 996 - A proposal
Hi Tony
If this proposal is accepted, then I think it would need to reference the
response's 'messageLabel' (as mentioned in Arthur's email) in the exchange
element.
<Tony>Very likely. I agree we would need to study WSDL 2.0 in sufficient
detail to determine what we would need to make a clear linkage, although if
the responses have unique names I am not sure what they would add. </Tony>
However, what is to prevent a MEP having multiple request messages? Is this
covered in WSDL2?
<Tony>Do not know. Again we would need to study WSDL 2.0. I said one
request as I assumed that it was the request name that distinguished one
'operation' or set of request and allowable responses from another. Do you
have a particular 'use case' in mind, where you would need to do as a single
unit rather than having the ability to send requests 'in parallel' (where
each request had its own define pattern of allowed responses)? Even if the
multiple request case is theoretically possible I would have thought it is a
bit of an 'edge' case and we could omit for an 80 - 90% case solution.
</Tony>
Although we do have a charter to bind to WSDL2, I am not sure that CDL
necessarily needs to be so literal in the way that it expresses the
interactions that will map to a particular MEP. We do need to ensure that
CDL could describe the message exchanges that may be defined within a WSDL
definition, but I don't think this needs to necessarily be confined to a
single interaction.
<Tony> I agree in principle - see above as well</Tony>
For example - if you have a MEP that has one request followed by two
responses, then one approach would be to model it with two interactions, the
first having the req-resp exchange elements and the second interaction
having the second response exchange.
<Tony> But in this case it seems to me that you are 'favouring' one
response over another. If both are legitimate responses of equal standing,
why should there be a need to treat them differently in the choreo
description?</Tony>
At model verification time, the overall sequence of message exchanges for
the interactions in CDL could be compared against those in the WSDL
definition - and if the second response is not found to follow the initial
req-resp in all cases, then this would generate an error.
<Tony> Yes certainly should be able to check that the sequencing of messages
according to the choreo description is supported by the WS description. (It
may not be the only one supported in general.)</Tony>
Regards
Gary
----- Original Message -----
From: Tony Fletcher <mailto:tony_fletcher@btopenworld.com>
To: public-ws-chor@w3.org
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 4:28 PM
Subject: Issue 996 - A proposal
Dear Colleagues,
I am informed by the Web Service Description group that WSDL 2.0 in its
current draft form is able to describe the possibility of having several
response messages for a (single) request message (refer to
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-chor/2005Feb/0024.html).
As a resolution for Issue 996 I therefore propose that the following changes
are made to the CDL specification:
1) It is made clear that an 'interaction' element can only have one
'exchange' element with action="request".
2) That an 'interaction' element can have more than one 'exchange' element
with action="response".
a) the responses occur in the lexical order the are written in (i.e. with
no wrapping element they occur in the sequence they are written)
b) if the responses, or a subset of them, are contained within a 'choice'
element then one but only one of the responses in the choice occur
c) if the responses, or a subset of them, are contained within a 'set'
element then they all may occur and in any order
3) The text with regard to causeException as left as is, that is there can
be zero, one, or more exception causing (or fault) messages listed as
responses in an interaction and they form an implicit 'choice' group (that
is only one of them can occur).
4) If there are multiple responses defined then a CDL endpoint may emit an
exception causing message after emitting one or more normal responses
according to the definition. It is invalid to emit a normal response after
emitting an exception causing message. A receiver may choose to receive a
normal response message after receiving an exception causing message (within
a single interaction definition) as it may have been generated before the
exception causing message or may ignore it and just act on the exception
causing message.
5) Amend the CDL schema as follows:
<complexType name="tInteraction">
<complexContent>
<extension base="cdl:tExtensibleElements">
<sequence>
<element name="participate" type="cdl:tParticipate"/>
<element name="exchangeGroup" type="cdl:tExchangeGroup"
minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
<element name="timeout" type="cdl:tTimeout" minOccurs="0"
maxOccurs="1"/>
<element name="record" type="cdl:tRecord" minOccurs="0"
maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
</sequence>
<attribute name="name" type="NCName" use="required"/>
<attribute name="channelVariable" type="QName" use="required"/>
<attribute name="operation" type="NCName" use="required"/>
<attribute name="align" type="boolean" use="optional"
default="false"/>
<attribute name="initiate" type="boolean" use="optional"
default="false"/>
</extension>
</complexContent>
</complexType>
<complexType name="tExchangeGroup">
<complexContent>
<extension base="cdl:tExtensibleElements">
<choice>
<element name="exchange" type="cdl:tExchange"/>
<element name="choice" type="cdl:tChoiceExchange"/>
<element name="set" type="cdl:tSetExchange"/>
</choice>
</extension>
</complexContent>
</complexType>
<complexType name="tChoiceExchange">
<complexContent>
<extension base="cdl:tExtensibleElements">
<sequence>
<element name="exchange" type="cdl:tExchange"/>
</sequence>
</extension>
</complexContent>
</complexType>
<complexType name="tSetExchange">
<complexContent>
<extension base="cdl:tExtensibleElements">
<sequence>
<element name="exchange" type="cdl:tExchange"/>
</sequence>
</extension>
</complexContent>
</complexType>
Examples:
So the following would all become valid.
A)
<interaction name="ABCF" channelVariable="tns:aChannel" operation="a">
<participate relationshipType="SuperiorInferior"
fromRole="tns:Superior" toRole="Inferior"/>
<exchange name="A" informationType="Atype" action="request">
<send variable="tns:A"/>
<receive variable="tns:A"/>
</exchange>
<exchange name="B" informationType="BType" action="respond">
<send variable="tns:B"/>
<receive variable="tns:B"/>
</exchange>
<exchange name="C" informationType="CType" action="respond">
<send variable="tns:C"/>
<receive variable="tns:C"/>
</exchange>
<exchange name="F" informationType="FType" action="respond">
<send variable="tns:F" causeException="true"/>
<receive variable="tns:F" causeException="true"/>
</exchange>
</interaction>
B)
<interaction name="ABCF" channelVariable="tns:aChannel" operation="a">
<participate relationshipType="SuperiorInferior"
fromRole="tns:Superior" toRole="Inferior"/>
<exchange name="A" informationType="Atype" action="request">
<send variable="tns:A"/>
<receive variable="tns:A"/>
</exchange>
<choice>
<exchange name="B" informationType="BType" action="respond">
<send variable="tns:B"/>
<receive variable="tns:B"/>
</exchange>
<exchange name="C" informationType="CType" action="respond">
<send variable="tns:C"/>
<receive variable="tns:C"/>
</exchange>
</choice>
<exchange name="D" informationType="DType" action="respond">
<send variable="tns:D"/>
<receive variable="tns:D"/>
</exchange>
<exchange name="F" informationType="FType" action="respond">
<send variable="tns:F" causeException="true"/>
<receive variable="tns:F" causeException="true"/>
</exchange>
</interaction>
C)
<interaction name="ABCF" channelVariable="tns:aChannel" operation="a">
<participate relationshipType="SuperiorInferior"
fromRole="tns:Superior" toRole="Inferior"/>
<exchange name="A" informationType="Atype" action="request">
<send variable="tns:A"/>
<receive variable="tns:A"/>
</exchange>
<set>
<exchange name="B" informationType="BType" action="respond">
<send variable="tns:B"/>
<receive variable="tns:B"/>
</exchange>
<exchange name="C" informationType="CType" action="respond">
<send variable="tns:C"/>
<receive variable="tns:C"/>
</exchange>
</set>
<exchange name="D" informationType="DType" action="respond">
<send variable="tns:D"/>
<receive variable="tns:D"/>
</exchange>
<exchange name="F" informationType="FType" action="respond">
<send variable="tns:F" causeException="true"/>
<receive variable="tns:F" causeException="true"/>
</exchange>
</interaction>
Note: I added the 'set' element as seemed to be a logical extension of the
ideas. If other are uncomfortable with it then I would be happy to see it
removed. I think the sequence and choice possibilities for multiple
responses will cover at least 80% of the cases.
Best Regards Tony
A M Fletcher
Cohesions (TM)
Business transaction management software for application coordination
www.choreology.com <http://www.choreology.com/>
Choreology Ltd., 68 Lombard Street, London EC3V 9LJ UK
Tel: +44 (0) 1473 729537 Mobile: +44 (0) 7801 948219
tony.fletcher@choreology.com (Home: amfletcher@iee.org)
Received on Thursday, 24 February 2005 21:56:38 UTC