- From: Mark Little <Mark.Little@arjuna.com>
- Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 10:21:03 +0100
- To: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>, www-ws-arch <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
>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." If we're going to mention specifications, it would be better (and more even handed) to have 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, WS-CAF, 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 :-) Mark.
Received on Friday, 12 September 2003 05:21:13 UTC