- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 09:06:14 -0400
- To: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
- Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 09:50:12PM -0400, Champion, Mike wrote: > I think of "Choreography" sortof like a policy, not a program. I agree. But David said something that suggested that it was defining the *how*, not just the *what*; "specification of ordering of messages". If it were to define the *what*, I would expect it to say something like; "The specification of potential state changes". In most cases, there are multiple possible sequences of messages that could result in a desired state change. As a trivial example, any sequence that included an HTTP GET message, could include an arbitrary number of HTTP GETs. i.e. POST-GET-POST is equivalent to POST-GET-GET-GET-GET-POST. Also, the mention of turing completeness suggests *how*, rather than *what*, though I'm a bit unclear about its intent due to the use of the term "message exchange pattern" (which presumably means something different than a SOAP MEP - perhaps "message exchange sequence"?) On the plus side, I like that it's short. 8-) MB -- Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca http://www.idokorro.com
Received on Thursday, 17 October 2002 09:04:39 UTC