- From: Sergey Beryozkin <sberyozkin@zandar.com>
- Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 17:01:54 +0100
- To: "Savas Parastatidis" <Savas.Parastatidis@newcastle.ac.uk>, <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
- Cc: "Paul Watson" <Paul.Watson@newcastle.ac.uk>, "Jim Webber" <jim.webber@arjuna.com>, "Thomas Rischbeck" <thomas.rischbeck@arjuna.com>, <arnaud.simon@arjuna.com>
Savas, >In the first case, the "service state" is private to the service. Nobody >knows and nobody should care what data the service maintains behind its >interface. thanks for clarifying this >In the second case, the "application state" captures interaction, >application specific information. >In the third case, a resource is exposed through a URI so that it can be >identified and refer to. True, a service may decide to expose part or >the entire resource through its interface, in which case we don't really >care what's behind that interface. When I was saying that a service may want to expose different views of the same data for different customers (security context, for ex) or depending on what stage the activity is. I thought it would be the second case. Let's assume a table in a database needs to be exposed. The service may want to return a different view of this table depending on some "application state" contained in a given request. So, this time :-) I think that there're indeed could be 3 different types of state, but "3. State as in "data resource"" can turn into "2. Application state" Cheers Sergey Beryozkin
Received on Tuesday, 24 June 2003 12:01:36 UTC