- From: Williams, Stuart <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 10:48:12 -0000
- To: "'David Clay'" <david.clay@oracle.com>
- Cc: "'Mark Nottingham'" <mnot@akamai.com>, "'Randy Waldrop'" <rwaldrop@webmethods.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
David, Thanks for the thought. > -----Original Message----- > From: David Clay [mailto:david.clay@oracle.com] > Sent: 09 March 2001 18:42 > To: Williams, Stuart > Cc: 'Mark Nottingham'; 'Randy Waldrop'; xml-dist-app@w3.org > Subject: Re: Other message patterns > > > Perhaps you have already considered this...Another way of > thinking about this > would be that one-way is a primitive and message correlation > is a primitive. That would kind do it. Any thoughts on how you would present an abstraction of correlation - would it look very different form request/response as we have it. > With these 2 primitives, you can build synchronous or > asynchronous RPC, conversations, et al. The service abstraction in the current model draft doesn't make a distinction between synchronous and asynchronous request/response... it's just request/response - what happens under the covers to deliver that functionality is part of whatever mechnansisms we design for XML protocol. > However, this would mean that we would have to make > correlation a part of the basic model, which so far we have resisted. <snip/> Regards Stuart
Received on Monday, 12 March 2001 05:48:23 UTC