This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.

Bug 691 - Locally defined variables: Structure: How are locally defined variables defined when they are not consistent between roles that participate in the choreography?
Summary: Locally defined variables: Structure: How are locally defined variables defi...
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: WS Choreography
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Spec: Variables (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Hardware: Other other
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: --
Assignee: Martin Chapman
QA Contact: WS Choreography mailing-list
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2004-04-26 11:47 UTC by Greg Ritzinger
Modified: 2005-01-04 20:42 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:


Attachments

Description Greg Ritzinger 2004-04-26 11:47:17 UTC
Monica: Locally defined variables: Structure: How are locally 
defined variables defined when they are not consistent between roles that
participate in the choreography? How are conflicts handled in the 
global view or is alignment only if a role engages in message exchange?

David: Basically yes. Alignment of variables can only occur as a 
result of a message exchange. e.g. the sending of an acknowledgement will
often allow the sender of the original message to align his state with 
the state of the recipient. Even after alignment the variables/state 
of each participant is not the same.

Monica: Make text more explicit then and acknowledge the risk of only 
depending on message exchange.
Comment 1 Martin Chapman 2004-08-12 16:04:23 UTC
Reclassified to requires clarification from monica
Comment 2 Martin Chapman 2004-08-19 15:11:28 UTC
Response: If you look at Section 2.42 (page 19), it indicates that only one 
role may have visibility via a locally defined variable to a maximum order 
amount, for example. The example states that this information is combined by 
one role with the actual order amount to direct the choreography.  My question 
is if that information should be available to both/multiple parties (herein 
roles) participating in the choreography. If this distinction is made outside 
of CDL who is driving (I thought it was peer-to-peer)? Typically, to me, the 
parties would agree on the paths ahead of time and not indiscriminately let one 
role redirect that (unless specifically allowed in the technical agreement). A 
similar question was alluded to by Steve Ross-Talbot in his state alignment 
proposal ('Should only the recipient role in an interaction be able to use the 
contents of the message in a decision that would affect a subsequent 
interaction? Or should both roles that participated in the interaction have 
visibility to the same message?')
Comment 3 Greg Ritzinger 2004-10-12 18:22:47 UTC
Proposal:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-chor/2004Oct/0021.html