- From: Amelia A. Lewis <alewis@tibco.com>
- Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 10:03:26 -0400
- To: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
- Cc: jmarsh@microsoft.com, www-ws-desc@w3.org
*shrug* Probably. But outbound-first is unrelated to the "multis". The "multis" are in-multi-out, assuming only two participants, with the service streaming messages until it (somehow) decides to stop, and out-multi-in, assuming only two participants, with the [not-acting-as-a-service-participant] replying to a single question from the service with a barrage of answers, one after the other. Whatever those were intended, they were not proposed or advocated by TIBCO, and I can't defend them because I don't understand them, and don't see any use in them. I wasn't asked to supply justification for the outbound-first operations, which TIBCO *has* advocated, strongly. The disappearance of the old multicast solicit response is a result of changes in the definitions, such that the outbound-first operations are now, theoretically (apart from the trifling problem that fault replaces message is probably inappropriate), modeled by existing outbound-first patterns. Amy! On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 19:56:40 +0600 Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com> wrote: > > "Amelia A. Lewis" <alewis@tibco.com> writes: > > > > The "multis" are not multicast-related, and I was never a proponent > > of them. I do not, in fact, understand what networking paradigm > > they are thought to embody, or who has advocated them. > > > > The "multis" appear to be serial unicast: a trigger message starts a > > flow of messages from some other participant, which eventually > > stops. I feel certain that someone has a reason for proposing such > > patterns, but it wasn't me, and I don't know what the reason was or > > is. > > I'm confused Amy .. I recall that Tibco and MSFT had different > interpretations of the old outbound operations and I had always > thought that that difference was recognized by these two patterns. > > Is that not the case? Is there another pattern we should be > including that has a single outbound / single inbound combination > yet does something different that we should be including? > > Sanjiva. > > -- Amelia A. Lewis Architect, TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc. alewis@tibco.com
Received on Tuesday, 30 September 2003 10:03:30 UTC