Re: [wsbpel] RE: Questions (RE: [wsbpel] Proposed agenda for May28-29 WS BPEL TC face to face)

["Monica J. Martin" <monica.martin@sun.com>]

> <<Arkin:The question arises, can you depend on the communication 
> mechanism to always be session-based? The process definition would be 
> more usable if it could remain protocol independent and so make the 
> assumption that all communication mechanisms are always session-based. 
> If we could handle sessions in the protocol binding that would allow 
> us to define processes with the assumption of a session-based 
> mechanism and support a variety of protocols and the different ways in 
> which they handle sessions.
>
> I am looking into this right now, and my impression so far is that it 
> can be done by standardizing on a set of properties that would be used 
> for session handling, and then using either generic headers from 
> session-based protocols, or addressing this in the protocol binding 
> for specific protocols that do not support sessions natively. >>


mm1: Look at the work of WSIA-WSRP and you may find some answers there.  
They determine early on, that your assumption is correct - not all 
communication mechanisms support sessions (Please them though on their 
findings).

Monica