[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] process coordination ideas - counter-proposal revised
Satish and all, > I realize I had provided no such explanations in my PPT > so attached herewith is an update with an additional > explanation slide and a few other clarifications suggested > by others. In response, I also revised my counter-proposal (attached). Thanks for the explanations, I now understand much better where you're going with this. > I strongly believe that coordination (c*) messages > will very commonly require application-specific data > in long-running business transactions. As such > I think of coordination across processes >(and especially subprocesses invoked by a coordinating > superior process) as abstract design patterns superimposed > on application-specific interactions. And there is more > than one of these patterns -- for instance I suspect that > Robert and I have illustrated two of them. I agree that there will be more than one of such patterns - once started a project in UNCEFACT to try to harvest them. But they (mostly? all?) consist of some application messages finishing with the equivalent of confirm or cancel. By the way, I revised mine to correspond more to the EAN.UCC Simple-eb scenario.
Process Coordination in BPEL CounterProposal.ppt
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]