Re: Summary: 22-24 Sept 2003 WS Desc FTF

Now that you mention it, I think that I proposed in-multi-out at the
Scottsdale f2f. It was simply meant to be an example of a pattern other
than the usual one-in/one-out ones. I can vaguely imagine some use for
it, like a stock ticker service (don't shoot me, please). Hopefully it
served some purpose in helping define the pattern framework, but I don't
think it (or the other "multi") deserve a place in the WSDL 1.2 spec.


Amelia A. Lewis wrote:
> *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 <> wrote:
>>"Amelia A. Lewis" <> 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
>>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?

Received on Tuesday, 30 September 2003 14:22:21 UTC