- From: Gary Brown <gary@pi4tech.com>
- Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 16:41:19 +0000
- To: Kohei Honda <kohei@dcs.qmul.ac.uk>
- CC: "Monica J. Martin" <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>, Martin Chapman <martin.chapman@oracle.com>, 'WS-Choreography List' <public-ws-chor@w3.org>
Hi Kohei I don't think co-relation can be used as this would be dependent upon the contents of the messages, which cannot be relied upon to be distinct from a previous request. So I think the most appropriate approach is the new exchange action type, which makes it then consistent with the way other Message Exchange Patterns are described (i.e. explicitly). Regards Gary Kohei Honda wrote: > > A bit confused with negation: > >> >> From this viewpoint, my question is: are there any these >> "request-reply" and its variants, including >> notifications, which cannot be captured as a pattern of interaction, >> which can be made explicit by the >> use of co-relation identity? > > I meant, in the last clause: ..., which cannot be made explicit by the > use of co-relation identity? > > My question was, therefore: whether all can be captured by co-relation > (or session) identities or not. > As written, even if all can, I do not oppose having explicit > constructs for specifying local (or micro) > protocols. > > kohei > > > > >
Received on Monday, 30 October 2006 16:42:35 UTC