- From: Champion, Mike <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
- Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 10:51:42 -0600
- To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> -----Original Message----- > From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) > [mailto:RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com] > Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 12:21 PM > To: Champion, Mike; www-ws-arch@w3.org > Subject: RE: SOA proposed text - harvesting previous threads > > Oops, sent without intending to. I have edited in-line here ... > > In general, it seems to me that quite a number of people have > essentially been in agreement here about what needs to be > said, and that it is important not to have bald statements > about statelessness which may be literally correct but which > may leave a misimpression for those interested in stateful > interactions. Hmm, I liked the idea of adding something like: "Stateful service interactions such as those involving coordination, transactions, choreography, authentication/authorization, etc. can be defined at the software layer above the services themselves. This layer may be in the top layer application, or it may be a higher level of the service infrastructure, as in the case of, for example, WS-Coordination, WS-Transaction, WSBPEL, etc." That would go at the end of the "state management" paragraph in the Best Practices section. Is that more or less what you had in mind? If this turns into a trout pond, I'm tempted to emulate Werner Vogels and just drop "state management" because there is such intense religious feeling on the subject :-)
Received on Thursday, 11 September 2003 12:51:44 UTC