[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: Whoever web services and Webber (was RE: [ws-caf] Mt Everest and WS-CF)
Peter, > I am not quite sure what you mean by correlate - our services > are stateless, and the other information in the message as a > whole identifies that you are the sender, which is the only > information of concern to us. Fine - I didn't presume (or want) to know the details of your implementation. > oh. this is rather awkward, as the old version spec didn't > actually say what the required behaviour was. Please will > have you ensured clarification to the tc before the spec is > finalized. That may be a point to bring up as part of the TC effort. Certainly I had a set of semantics associated with it in my head, but if they don't match your assumed semantics then there is clearly a gap in the written spec. > > The point here is that I perceive value in the standardisation of > > mustPropagate and unique context id since they immediately > enable me > > to do message correlation in a standard way. > > Yes, I agree there is some value, but it all depends on the > semantics of mustPropagate, which aren't defined anywhere in > draft 0.2 (at least, "mustPropagate" occurs only in xml, with > no explanation of what it means). So Whoever web services > might not be doing what you hoped. I'll raise an issue on > this, as it is a definable question. As long as they propagate the context on messages that they send to me which are the result of actions on similarly contextualised messages I am happy. > On the question of the type identification, I think you are > suggesting it can be omitted - I don't see how that can work. I am indeed saying that a plain vanilla context is useful. > It is optional in the schema; my understanding of this is > that it is optional because it might be absent in > by-reference, though actually I think that's wrong too. If it > were to be omitted: > > Suppose Whoever agreed with your interpretation, but wanted > to define their own activity that had independent boundaries > to yours. So on a message sent back to you there are two > contexts, containing identical elements apart from the value > of the context-identifier. So do you correlate this both ways ? No not necessarily - their work is not part of my activity, why would they send me a context to a piece of work that I know nothing about? Plus wouldn't the identifiers for those activities be different? Can we therefore boil this down to an issue: that the semantics of mustPropagate are not sufficiently defined in the spec? Jim -- http://jim.webber.name
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]