On Apr 5, 2005, at 5:32 AM, Karl Czajkowski wrote:
On Apr 04, Jon MacLaren loaded a tape reading:
.... S1.1.1 - P6 - Composability with negotiation models. I never understood this either. How would you "base" a negotiation protocol which required some sort of lengthy interaction on WS-Agreement? I wondered if this just meant that the document format would be used, and that a different, unrelated messaging protocol would be used. I'd love to see an example of what this means.
I think that is right, at least in the sense that the AgreementFactory messages would not come into play. I do think that an Agreement could appear (or disappear) as a result of this external protocol, so that introspection based on WS-Agreement could happen. Whether this makes sense or not would require a judgement call that is hard to make in the abstract...
Ok, so that's not what people mean when they say composability, so this should definitely be clarified in the spec. It's just that someone could "base a negotiation protocol on the WS-Agreement document format". This is a much less bold claim - but it's probably about as far as you can realistically go. As I said in one of my public comments (which has been decided against) - the document format is useful on its own and should appear in a separate spec. I really think that there are too many different things for this to be one document.
karl
-- Karl Czajkowski karlcz@univa.com
Jon.