- From: Monica J. Martin <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>
- Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2006 14:52:11 -0800
- To: Steve Ross-Talbot <steve@pi4tech.com>
- Cc: Charlton Barreto <charlton_b@mac.com>, Martin Chapman <martin.chapman@oracle.com>, "'Gary Brown'" <gary@pi4tech.com>, "'WS-Choreography List'" <public-ws-chor@w3.org>
> Steve Ross-Talbot wrote: I think the BPEL thing is a red herring. We > have always been able to model or describe more than BPEL can handle. > Our concept of channel identity is not supported by BPEL (from > memory) and is much richer than BPEL. > > The ability to have a response with not matching request is in-built > into WS-CDL and always has been. What we match is not request/ > response but send/receive - and interaction. A request and a response > can be modeled as two explicit interactions but can, as a > convenience, be modeled in a single interaction. If we have them > explicit then implementors can choose how to match (usually on > operation name) but I do not think this is mandatory. When we have a > request and a response in a single interaction the operation names > are by definition matched - they share the same operation name. > > A notification exchange type makes explicit a pattern which in turn > provides clarity of description. It becomes clear as to the intent. > And this can only be a good thing. Just because BPEL doesn't support > it doesn't mean we should not. Just because many Web Service stacks > do not support it does not mean we should not. One day they may well > support it and so by supporting what is in the standards and what the > wider non-web service community use ensures we achieve one of our > goals, namely that we all want WS-CDL to have wider utility than > current tools provide today and wider utility outside of a strictly > web service environment - hence the optional role interface in WS-CDL. mm1: I just made an observation to consider in the total scope of our discussion, not to create a religious war (for others than myself). As far as the exchange type, we need to discuss in detail whether the issue is the need for a new exchange type or reconsideration of the semantics and constraints of the current 'respond.' I'm anxiously awaiting this final observation to be addressed. Thanks.
Received on Friday, 3 November 2006 22:52:21 UTC