- From: Champion, Mike <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
- Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 07:13:06 -0600
- To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org] > Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2002 11:30 PM > To: Champion, Mike > Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org > Subject: Re: Routing and choreography > > Now let's say you want to > modify this flow, perhaps to decouple the immediate invoicing from the > order submission by introducing a "confirmation receipt" > step. This can > obviously be done by modifying the resource which declared the invoice > transition such that the new transition is to the receipt. > But another > way to do it is to use a specialized intermediary (a reverse proxy in > this case, as WS-Referral or HTTP's 305 response code enables) that > recognizes the output from the order processor, and basically > intercepts > the invoice link and replaces it with a receipt link - and of course, > also updates the receipt to point to the invoice. OK, that's a RESTful mechanism for implementing the kinds of things that WSCI and BPEL4WS talk about, as best I understand them. But the point of "web services choreography" broadly defined is to define a non-procedural language for describing these links and message flows, not to prescribe a mechanism for implementing them. Ideally a standard choreography language would describe the flows and let one modify them without ripping up a bunch of software; someone like you could implement them RESTfully, VS.NET users could implement them RPC-ishly [RP-sheep-ishly ? maybe you can use that as a comeback when we call you RESTifarians <grin>], and may the best approach win.
Received on Thursday, 29 August 2002 09:13:42 UTC