RE: Exchange type issue

Gary,

One of the problems there has been with out-only/notify exchanges is that no one has ever defined a binding for them.
You seem to assume that you can use the same channel to send these notify messages, but that is not clear to me at all.

Martin.

>-----Original Message-----
>From: public-ws-chor-request@w3.org 
>[mailto:public-ws-chor-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Gary Brown
>Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 2:37 PM
>To: Martin Chapman
>Cc: charlton_b@mac.com; 'Monica J. Martin'; 'Steve 
>Ross-Talbot'; 'WS-Choreography List'
>Subject: Re: Exchange type issue
>
>
>
>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 18:38:43 UTC