OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ws-caf message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: RE: [ogsi-wg] RE: [ws-caf] WS-Resource Framework

Hey all,

Since Mark asked for my comment...


> I'm still waiting to see what the real differentiator is in the useage
> pattern, the interaction pattern, or whatever that means that this
> couldn't
> have been achieved with WS-RF. If you look at the paper that Savas et
> produced many months ago, doesn't that map to precisely the same
> but
> using WS-Context at the core? Hopefully Savas can comment on this too.

[...] (lots of [...])

Mark, I agree with your arguments (I know... that doesn't happen very
often :-)

In our paper all those months ago we wanted to present a way to do
stateful interactions in a service-oriented fashion. WS-Context provided
us with the means to do just that. We wanted to model stateful
_interactions_ through message correlation.

There are many ways for doing this:

- BPEL uses properties from application messages to model stateful

- One could use information in the messages to explicitly correlate
messages (e.g., order numbers explicitly sent as "arguments" to
operations) (similar to the above really).

- One could overload the semantics of a service and introduce "service
instances" (the OGSI approach and we know how that ended).
- Or, contextualisation could be used. WS-Context was the only
specification at the time explicitly talking about contextualisation
(and still the only one as far as I know).

Your choice of any of the above methods is application-specific. If you
want to model stateful interactions with a particular resource, you
could do it with any of the above ways. The WS-RF authors decided to use
WS-Addressing, which is fine. It means that parts of a WS-Address
structure will have to travel as headers in a message. It's a form of
contextualisation. However, it's not different from WS-Context which
scales better to multiple participant interactions. I can't see how this
could be done with WS-Resources.

Could WS-RF have used WS-Context? Sure! No doubt about that.

I would welcome an effort by the two communities to bridge their
differences. Until then... let's build some applications to test the
ideas: http://www.neresc.ac.uk/ws-gaf/AboutWSGAFApplication.html.

Best regards,

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]