RE: [ws-caf] Questions about section 3

["Furniss, Peter" <Peter.Furniss@choreology.com>]

I sent into the list a few weeks ago some rather simpler tables that say what "reply" was expected from any particular "request", derived from examination of the input texts for all of caf. They would need updating, and weren't the full state tables that Jim suggests (but which would be very simple for ws-context, and probably vital once we get to TXM).
 
Peter

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: Mark Little [mailto:mark.little@arjuna.com] 
	Sent: Thu 24/06/2004 13:38 
	To: Jim Webber; ws-caf@lists.oasis-open.org 
	Cc: 
	Subject: Re: [ws-caf] Questions about section 3
	
	

	Jim, of course it's possible for someone to provide these tables. Whether
	the editors have time or someone else might like to volunteer ... ;-)
	
	Mark.
	
	----- Original Message -----
	From: "Jim Webber" <Jim.Webber@newcastle.ac.uk>
	To: <ws-caf@lists.oasis-open.org>
	Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 1:34 PM
	Subject: RE: [ws-caf] Questions about section 3
	
	
	> Mark:
	>
	> > As to what happens if you get an unsolicited message (e.g., a
	> > contentsSet when no setContents was sent), then that's pretty
	> > much the same: it can happen now, with A. N. Other
	> > specification. I suppose we could put something in saying
	> > that such unsolicited responses are to be ignored, but is
	> > there a standard disclaimer that others use?
	>
	> This raises an interesting point. Would it be possible for the editors
	> to provide (psuedo) state machines that normatively cover this type of
	> scenario? They exist in WS-AT/BA and as I recall Peter did some tables
	> for the BTP effort along these lines.
	>
	> Jim
	> --
	> http://jim.webber.name
	>