[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: [Bug 173] New: Request/response or one-ways
http://services.arjuna.com/wscaf-issues/show_bug.cgi?id=173 Summary: Request/response or one-ways Product: WS-CF Version: 1.0 Platform: PC URL: http://www.choreology.com/external/ws- cf.choreology_comments.htm#CHCF-15 OS/Version: Windows XP Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: Text and diagrams AssignedTo: ws-caf@lists.oasis-open.org ReportedBy: tony.fletcher@choreology.com QAContact: mark.little@arjuna.com Where: 4.1 The participant : coordinator relationship has a confusion of request/response and automonous exchanges. Is there a real need for the coordinator (as CoordinatorParticipant) to keep updating the Participant on its address. The registration procedure should (and does) allow exchange of addresses (references), and they should then be free to send AssertionType messages to each other as required. There is no need to distinguish setResponse from a reply to a request for the participants vote. A particular coordination protocol may allow or disallow spontaneous votes, but the framework should be flexible. The present text perhaps bears too much indication of an ancestry in an RPC world. Relationships built on one-ways are different (but the req/rsp way can be subsetted from that by a particular coordination protocol if needed) Suggestion: Merge the two directions. ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]