issue 57: Should Operations permit alternate and multiple responses?

I would like to close the following issue as its redundant:

  <issue>
    <issue-num>57</issue-num>
    <title>Should Operations permit alternate and multiple
responses?</title>
    <locus>Spec</locus>
    <requirement>n/a</requirement>
    <priority>Design</priority>
    <topic></topic>
    <status>Active</status>
    <originator><a href="mailto:pyendluri@webmethods.com">Prasad
Yendluri</a></originator>
    <responsible>Unassigned</responsible>
    <description>
    [<a

href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Apr/0081.html">ema
il</a>]
    We discussed this briefly at the F2F (perhaps) but, I think it
    would be extremely helpful to permit alternate and multiple
    responses to a request. That is permit multiple output messages in
    an operation like we have multiple faults in an operation. It
    would then be helpful to make them alternate or sequence. That is,
    do all of them come back or just one of them. This is perhaps a
    suggestion for new functionality.
    </description>
    <proposal>
    </proposal>
    <resolution>
    </resolution>
  </issue>

The following closed issue makes the above redundant:

<issue id="issue-operation-patterns" status="closed">
  <head>Should more operation patterns be supported?</head>
  We discussed this briefly at the April F2F (perhaps) but, I think
  it would be extremely helpful to permit alternate and multiple
  responses to a request. That is permit multiple output messages in
  an operation like we have multiple faults in an operation. It would
  then be helpful to make them alternate or sequence. That is, do all
  of them come back or just one of them.
  <source>Prasad Yendluri</source>
  <resolution>This issue is closed by leaving it to the realm of
  orchestration languages and applications. June 11, 2002 (at
  face-to-face).</resolution>
</issue>

Any objections?

Sanjiva.

Received on Thursday, 20 June 2002 07:15:09 UTC