[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 77 - (was RE: [wsbpel] Possible new issue: BPEL cannot handle some SOAP header bindings)
missed a word in my message. shouldn't type late at night. > More generally, it would seem very plausible that there are > semantics to be communicated that are both sufficiently > general to be factored out as headers, and have an impact on > the required processing at business level > - this is just a question for correlation sets. We ^ NOT > (choreology) have already suggested this in the business > transaction submission, but one could imagine it applying to > security tokens (if previously checked, no need to recheck), > expiry times. And, digging further down the stack, could one > have a single process definition that was dynamically bound > to but whose behaviour depended on where the other party was > (intranet or extranet domain name ? - oh, I guess you could > get that from the partnerLink information) Peter
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]