- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 16:49:19 -0500
- To: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
- Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Hi Mike, On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 04:06:07PM -0500, Champion, Mike wrote: > Isn't the whole POINT of BPEL (and friends) to have the choreography > exchanged among all parties so that they KNOW what the states and transition > rules are up front, rather than simply having the server tell them what > state they just put the message in? Yes. See below. > I can imagine (I think) a RESTful > implementation of a BPEL-like system, but this doesn't look like one. It is one, because it respects all of REST's constraints. There may very well be other solutions to those examples that respect REST's constraints though. What would your solution look like? > I don't see anything in that quote from Dr. Fielding to imply that the rules > can't be shared, only that the engine(s) work off the > resource/representation paradigm. Sure, nothing's preventing the rules from being shared. It's just optional. Perhaps there's some legal reason to share it, I don't know. Anyhow, it's not needed in order to *execute* the process, which seems to me to be the important thing. MB -- Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca Web architecture consulting, technical reports, evaluation & analysis
Received on Friday, 20 December 2002 16:44:04 UTC