[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ws-caf] Mt Everest and WS-CF
Peter, You seem to be arguing from the position that all who see the WS-Context structure must understand everything in that structure. Instead, the WS-Context structure is a shared information space into which either party may put information it considers important (and allowed to be shared) about the current activity. All participants may use and reuse some subset of the shared information. However, it is very important that those who add to the context (or tie internal information to the context identifier) see their information later in related messages[1]. A subset of those who receive a particular context may understand the dependent specification or application semantic responsible for its content but all should include it in related messages. thanx, doug [1] Yes, "related messages" was somewhat ill-defined the last time I looked. The base set of messages understood to fall within the same activity (perhaps just direct responses) should likely be described in the WS-Context specification and extended, as needed, in dependent specifications. On 27-May-04 10:28, Furniss, Peter wrote: > Jim, > > >>The point is, I want it to be understood and a standard helps >>that. Not at the SOAP level where the mechanics of >>mustUnderstand help, but by the _people_ building the >>service. I can get them to support a standard (hey, they can >>reuse the work with their other partners) but I can't get >>them to use my own ad-hoc structure. > > > But you can get them to understand your own ad-hoc overload of the > ws-context identifier ? > > Do you accept that they will have to implement something you define ? > You seem to think WS-Context alone will do it, but it has no semantics. > > Peter
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]