RE: [ws-caf] Questions about section 3

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

No worries - I was much later than I'd promised in sending it in.

Peter


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Little [mailto:mark.little@arjuna.com]
> Sent: 25 June 2004 10:27
> To: Furniss, Peter; Jim Webber; ws-caf@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [ws-caf] Questions about section 3
> 
> 
> Peter, apologies for not including this in the 0.3 spec. It
> was on my to-do list and got lost.
> 
> Mark.
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Furniss, Peter" <Peter.Furniss@choreology.com>
> To: "Mark Little" <mark.little@arjuna.com>; "Jim Webber"
> <Jim.Webber@newcastle.ac.uk>; <ws-caf@lists.oasis-open.org>
> Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 3:41 PM
> Subject: RE: [ws-caf] Questions about section 3
> 
> 
> > 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
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
>