- From: Steve Ross-Talbot <steve@pi4tech.com>
- Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 15:27:32 +0000
- To: Gary Brown <gary@pi4tech.com>
- Cc: Martin Chapman <martin.chapman@oracle.com>, charlton_b@mac.com, "'Monica J. Martin'" <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>, 'WS-Choreography List' <public-ws-chor@w3.org>
Having had to do it the way that Martin described I can testify to the complexity of description that this yields. Cheers Steve T On 6 Nov 2006, at 14:36, Gary Brown wrote: > > Hi Martin > > I think this is dealing with a very specific situation - i.e. a > notification being sent without a previous request. This may well > be modelled using a channel from B to A, and send a request. > > However the situations I am primarily concerned with are the > situations where a dialogue is already under way between A and B, A > being the client and B being the server. B then wishes to notify A > of some change in situation. For this to be modelled using a > request from B to A, it would require a second channel to be > established in the CDL, and for the endpoint reference for A to be > passed to B as part of the preceding dialogue. This all complicates > the choreography unnecessarily, and creates a bi-directional > dependency between the client and server that may not be desirable. > > Regards > Gary > > > Martin Chapman wrote: >> Can someone please tell me the real difference between a notify >> and a in-only? If I have two participants A and B, when and why >> would I use notify instead of in-only if B needs to interact with >> A without a preceeding "request"? >> >> >> Martin. >> >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Charlton Barreto [mailto:charlton_b@mac.com] Sent: Sunday, >>> November 05, 2006 10:57 PM >>> To: Monica J. Martin >>> Cc: Steve Ross-Talbot; Martin Chapman; 'Gary Brown'; 'WS- >>> Choreography List' >>> Subject: Re: Exchange type issue >>> >>> >>> Monica J. Martin wrote: >>> >>>>> Steve Ross-Talbot wrote: Monica, >>>>> I take your point about religiosity. As regards clarity around the >>>>> new exchange type and semantics I do not think it changes the >>>>> semantics of anything in WS-CDL at all. Rather it makes >>>>> explicit something that is today implicit. So in a sense it >>>>> tidies things up. >>>>> >>>>> Cheers >>>>> Steve T >>>>> >>>> We have yet to consider that the only difference is the >>>> 'respond' is >>>> not tied to a 'request.' Therefore, this could be accommodated >>>> by allowing a respond that may or may not be tied to a request. >>>> As Gary said there is no other difference. Thanks. >>>> >>>> >>> True, there is no other difference. However, having the new >>> exchange type makes explicit the exchange pattern represented by >>> the choreo. As there is no semantic difference, I see no logical >>> reason not to have the new exchange type. >>> >>> -Charlton. >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> > > > >
Received on Monday, 6 November 2006 15:48:27 UTC