[objectiser]

The one I have been using at the moment is the ESBBroker.cdm that is part of the 'stateful' conversation samples.

I thought it may be best to use the same examples, as it will hopefully be easier for users to see the difference between the two approaches.

[marklittle]

Yes, good point. I wonder if rather than just present the way things would be done with the new approach we should also do a "compare and contrast".

Also, had any thoughts about migration paths? OK it's probably not something we have to worry too much about, but you never know.

[objectiser]

Yes, a 'compare and contrast' would be good - probably as part of the updated documentation.

Not sure about migration needs - the choreography would be the same, and any additional implementation based actions the user would have had to create for themselves.

The main difference is that if someone had created a service based on the stateful approach, and used information that had been stored in the database as part of the session, then this would need to be replaced by their own state management mechanism.

Depends how we are going to proceed with this work. If the next release contains both stateful and stateless approaches, then migration will not be necessary - although we may feel it appropriate to suggest that future use should focus on the 'stateless' approach?

Until we get some feedback on the comparison between the approaches, then it is hard to know how best to proceed.