Exchange type issue

Hi

Additional validation to detect such restrictions can be
added in tools, 
if the target is WS-BPEL or any web service without support
for 
notifications. This should not be a reason to restrict the
capabilities 
of the language.

Regards
Gary


Monica J. Martin wrote:
>
>> Charlton Barreto wrote: Should it be illegal? While
we agreed in 
>> issue X that a choreography should only
"officially" support the use 
>> of in-only, in-out and robust in-only MEPs from
WSDL 2.0, there's 
>> nothing as far as I can see in the spec that
indicates that a 
>> choreography could not describe any of the WSDL 2.0
MEPs. This 
>> implies that we could support responses that
wouldn't be matched to a 
>> request. If we have but one response in the choreo,
and that is not 
>> matched to the initiating request, we in effect
described an out-only 
>> with that choreo.
>> I agree with Gary that 'notify' is a suitable value
for that exchange 
>> action type, because in this case we are describing
a 
>> 'notification'/out-only MEP with the choreo.
>> -Charlton.
>>
>>  
>>
>>> On Friday, November 03, 2006, at 02:34PM,
"Martin Chapman" 
>>> <martin.chapmanoracle.com> wrote: In
1), why would we ever allow a 
>>> response that has not had a preceeding request?
This should be 
>>> illegal! The only chellange is being
>>> able to match a response with a request. We
could also allow fancy 
>>> patterns such as one request and mutiple
responses (of same or 
>>> different type) without introducing this
"notify" flag.
>>>
>>> Martin.
>>>   
> mm1: This relates to previous discussions we had a
conscious decisions 
> about the explicit MEP supported. One comment related
to this to 
> consider is that WS-BPEL specifically prohibits the use
of this 
> pattern and any definition that includes it is rejected
in static 
> analysis. This may create an incompatibility in
endpoint generation if 
> WS-BPEL is the target. Thanks.
>
>
>
>