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

Re: Exchange type issue

From: Steve Ross-Talbot <steve@pi4tech.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 14:34:39 +0000
Message-Id: <7A8F417D-C22A-4747-9D5D-B6040CFE1312@pi4tech.com>
Cc: charlton_b@mac.com, Martin Chapman <martin.chapman@oracle.com>, "'Gary Brown'" <gary@pi4tech.com>, "'WS-Choreography List'" <public-ws-chor@w3.org>
To: "Monica J. Martin" <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>

Not sure I follow what you are saying Monica. I am not saying that we  
cannot model it with existing MEP's. Rather I am saying it is better  
to make a notification explicit. Therefore to do this we need to  
distinguish between a response that is paired with a request as  
opposed to a response that is not. The latter would be a  
notification. By making it explicit, which does not change the  
semantics nor does it require new MEP's, we simply make it clear. One  
of the profound benefits of WS-CDL descriptions is the clarity they  
bring by describing the interactions. Currently interactions do not  
explicit denote a notification. Rather they enable the description to  
use a response. This is not really correct because it is not a  
response. A response is a response to something. A notification is  
different in terms of how it may be understood. The semantics (that  
that is observable) are identical. So we need some way of making it  
clear that our "response" is not a mistake. Having an explicit  
support for notification would ensure clarity. That is all I am after  
from this.


Steve T

On 6 Nov 2006, at 14:26, Monica J. Martin wrote:

>> Steve Ross-Talbot wrote: I concur with Charlton. It does not  
>> change the semantics and so has  no major impact but does have a  
>> clear benefit of adding clarity to  descriptions. Difficult to see  
>> why we should not do it.
>> Cheers
>> Steve T
> mm1: In our investigation, we found no substantive reason not to  
> model this with existing MEP already defined and used in WS-CDL.  
> There was no need for a new pattern and in fact it was redundant.  
> Thank you.
Received on Monday, 6 November 2006 15:19:31 UTC

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