[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)
Monica J. Martin wrote: >> <<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 > Good point! The issue we have is not unlike WSIA-WSRP, and the solution may be along the same lines. arkin
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]