W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-chor@w3.org > November 2006

Re: Exchange type issue

From: Monica J. Martin <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2006 09:03:08 -0800
To: Charlton Barreto <charlton_b@mac.com>
Cc: Martin Chapman <martin.chapman@oracle.com>, "'Gary Brown'" <gary@pi4tech.com>, "'WS-Choreography List'" <public-ws-chor@w3.org>
Message-id: <454B764C.1080007@sun.com>

>Charlton Barreto wrote: Should it be illegal? While we agreed in issue X that a choreography should only "officially" support the use of in-only, in-out and robust in-only MEPs from WSDL 2.0, there's nothing as far as I can see in the spec that indicates that a choreography could not describe any of the WSDL 2.0 MEPs. This implies that we could support responses that wouldn't be matched to a request. If we have but one response in the choreo, and that is not matched to the initiating request, we in effect described an out-only with that choreo. 
>I agree with Gary that 'notify' is a suitable value for that exchange action type, because in this case we are describing a 'notification'/out-only MEP with the choreo. 
>>On Friday, November 03, 2006, at 02:34PM, "Martin Chapman" <martin.chapman@oracle.com> wrote: In 1), why would we ever allow a response that has not had a preceeding request? This should be illegal! The only chellange is being
>>able to match a response with a request. We could also allow fancy patterns such as one request and mutiple responses (of same or different type) without introducing this "notify" flag.
mm1: This relates to previous discussions we had a conscious decisions 
about the explicit MEP supported. One comment related to this to 
consider is that WS-BPEL specifically prohibits the use of this pattern 
and any definition that includes it is rejected in static analysis. This 
may create an incompatibility in endpoint generation if WS-BPEL is the 
target. Thanks.
Received on Friday, 3 November 2006 17:03:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:30:37 UTC