- From: Amelia A. Lewis <alewis@tibco.com>
- Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 10:34:28 -0400
- To: "David Booth" <dbooth@w3.org>
- Cc: public-ws-desc-meps@w3.org
On Tue, 08 Apr 2003 17:17:38 -0400 David Booth <dbooth@w3.org> wrote: > > I've updated > http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl12/meps-vs-iops/meps-vs-iops_clean.htm > > : > Made IOP and MEP definitions more precise > Made assumptions more explicit I disagree with at least one of these assumptions. What justifies this "conservation of messages" assertion? > Added a multicast pattern (#8) that (hopefully) is what Amy > described Well, I'm at a bit of a loss, here. If #8 is what I described, then what's #7? If #7 isn't what I intended to describe, then what use is it? The intention of #7 was to describe a pattern in which: 1) the service sends a single message 2) the (zero or more) recipients of that message may choose to respond with the fault behavior: any message may trigger a fault, which is to be returned to the sender of the message triggering the fault. Given that IOPs model only direction, sequence, and cardinality (if we simplify by leaving out faults, for the moment), that looks like: OUT, IN* The agreement in Scottsdale was that faults go in. That makes the pattern more complex, but the core remains the content model shown above. Given the interpretation, in the MEPs created for IOP #7, that there is *one* recipient of a message, who is not one of the recipients, there is no use at all in those MEPs that I can imagine. Amy! -- Amelia A. Lewis Architect, TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc. alewis@tibco.com
Received on Wednesday, 9 April 2003 10:34:34 UTC