[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [wsbpel] RE: Questions (RE: [wsbpel] Proposed agenda for May28-29 WS BPEL TC face to face)
> <<Arkin:The question arises, can you depend on the communication > mechanism to always be session-based? The process definition would be > more usable if it could remain protocol independent and so make the > assumption that all communication mechanisms are always session-based. > If we could handle sessions in the protocol binding that would allow > us to define processes with the assumption of a session-based > mechanism and support a variety of protocols and the different ways in > which they handle sessions. > > I am looking into this right now, and my impression so far is that it > can be done by standardizing on a set of properties that would be used > for session handling, and then using either generic headers from > session-based protocols, or addressing this in the protocol binding > for specific protocols that do not support sessions natively. >> mm1: Look at the work of WSIA-WSRP and you may find some answers there. They determine early on, that your assumption is correct - not all communication mechanisms support sessions (Please them though on their findings). Monica
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]