This content has been marked as final.
Show 2 replies
-
1. Re: Distributed choreography
jeff.yuchang Nov 20, 2008 4:00 AM (in response to jeff.yuchang)'objectiser' wrote:
With the WS-CDL scenario, I would imagine that the choreography would be stored in the repository as an independent artefact, and then when the service is registered, it would include the meta-data to reference the WS-CDL, and also meta-data to identify the participant type.
Eventually (hopefully) it will be possible to also record the endpoint's behavioural description with the service itself - but this will also be compatible with the WS-CDL approach - as the endpoint description could then be frequently checked against the endpoint description to ensure continued conformance. The problem with the WS-CDL only reference, is that if the WS-CDL was to be updated, it does not guarantee to continue to represent the endpoint behaviour represented by the service implementation.
So there are a number of issues to be addressed, and it may depend how you wish users to work with the repository/registry - so needs further thought/discussion. -
2. Re: Distributed choreography
jeff.yuchang Nov 20, 2008 4:05 AM (in response to jeff.yuchang)"mark.little" wrote:
Yes, I was wondering if we could add something like Atom support to a filter in the ESB so that updates could be pushed through to the service container when they happen. I like Atom for this sort of thing, but the downside is that there are no guarantees on delivery or notification, so for some choreographies it may be too lax."mark.little wrote:
There are some other approaches we could consider apart from the one mentioned above. For instance, we could instrument the choreography with a time-to-live attribute, so that the service can poll for updates less frequently.