- From: Li, Li (Li) <lli5@avaya.com>
- Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 14:57:35 -0500
- To: <public-ws-resource-access@w3.org>
- Cc: "Chou, Wu (Wu)" <wuchou@avaya.com>
Gil, Thanks for the update. After reading the tables and the notes, I wasn't sure whose states we are describing. It appears that you are describing the states of the processes, e.g. subscriber/sink or event source/manager. However, this is difficult because each of these processes can handle many subscriptions simultaneously. As the result, the state tables have many empty cells that are undefined. So what you did is actually defining the states of those processes regarding one subscription. If this is the case, I think it is better to directly define the state transitions for the subscription, instead of the states of the processes. I think the information in the current tables can be reused. This would lead to a more concise and precise description of the behavior of the processes that developers care about. Thanks. Li Li
Received on Tuesday, 26 January 2010 19:58:07 UTC