Re: multiparty (was) Fwd: Re: message routing

[Philip Goatly <philip.goatly@bolero.net>]

Hello Stefano,

          I would agree that a good tool might take a UML model and perform
a decomposition to all the 'code'
that might be required.
          Autogeneration is something that particularly interests me, as I
have been involved with code generators in one guise of another for 6-7
years of my career, mostly writing them for my sins.

Cheers, Phil

----- Original Message -----
From: "Stefano POGLIANI" <stefano.pogliani@sun.com>
To: "bhaugen" <linkage@interaccess.com>; "John Yunker" <JohnY@EDIFECS.COM>;
<ebxml-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org>
Cc: <ebxml-bp@lists.ebxml.org>
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2001 9:26 AM
Subject: RE: multiparty (was) Fwd: Re: message routing


> I do not know if I am right, nor I am qualified to validate
> a mathematical model of this kind. But...
>
> ...my feeling is that trying to reconcile multi-party collaborations
> into a series/coordination/pattern-driven set of two-party
> collaboration is an academic effort at least from a modelling
> point of view.
>
> In some way, by applying some rigid practice I can "approach"
> OO-style of programming in any language; but is this "natural"?
> I mean, does this effort pay back?
>
> A different problem is the implementation. I mean, if for
> implementation purposes it is better to decompose in two-party
> collaborations, then a "tool" could take care of this (in some
> way, I program in a high-level language but the compiler
> translates into binary/assembler...). So, at runtime a
> multi-party may be decomposed in a way that is not
> even seen by the designer if this makes more sense from
> some mathematical/efficiency point of view.
>
> So, accept my apologies if this is so simplified; as I said,
> I do not have any mathematical proof of what you say (or of
> its contrary), but I am not looking for it. I am looking
> for a way to express "simply" some concepts
>
> Best regards
>
> /stefano
>
> » -----Original Message-----
> » From: bhaugen [mailto:linkage@interaccess.com]
> » Sent: 26 July 2001 18:56
> » To: John Yunker; ebxml-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org
> » Cc: ebxml-bp@lists.ebxml.org
> » Subject: Re: multiparty (was) Fwd: Re: message routing
> »
> »
> » From: John Yunker:
> » > This issue gets really thorny unless you keep two concepts front and
> » center:
> » > Any one "transaction" is between two parties, and a party's
> » responsibilities
> » > and capabilities are specified in the protocol in which they "agree"
to
> » > participate.
> »
> » I fully agree.
> »
> » Moreover, when it comes to dependencies between transactions in a
> » collaboration, many (if not most) of them will also be between
> » two parties,
> » because they will be commitment-fulfillment relationships and
commitments
> » are (usually?always?) between two parties.
> »
> » In other words, many (all?) multi-party collaborations can be resolved
to
> » a group of two-party dialogs.
> »
> » In still other words, the complexities of workflow models with splits
and
> » joins etc may be avoidable in many cases.
> »
> » -Bob Haugen
> »
> »
> »
> » ------------------------------------------------------------------
> » To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
> » "unsubscribe" in the body to: ebxml-bp-request@lists.ebxml.org
> »
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
> "unsubscribe" in the body to: ebxml-bp-request@lists.ebxml.org
>
> _____________________________________________________________________
> This message has been checked for all known viruses by the
> MessageLabs Virus Scanning Service. For further information visit
> http://www.messagelabs.com/stats.asp
>