[graap-wg] asynchronous binding

[Jon MacLaren]

As I've said in one of my comments on the spec, I think that the use of 
the word "terminate" to refer to the agreement is confusing.  In 
Section 4.1, under /wsag:Context/wsag:ExpirationTime, the term 
TerminationTime is used to refer to the service lifetime, and 
ExpirationTime to the end of the agreement.  It's inconsistent.

(My original opinions on the "terminate agreement" operation still 
stand, however - I don't think it makes sense at all...  But that 
comment has already been discussed and rejected.)

Jon.


On Feb 22, 2005, at 9:44 AM, Heiko Ludwig wrote:

>
> Karl,
>
> on your issue with termination:
>
>  > I actually would question why we have a wsag:Terminate instead of 
> just
>  > using the WS-ResourceLifetime mechanism.  I cannot see what value it
>  > adds or what would be different about the semantics. The text in the
>  > Agreement Context section is hardly convincing on this point. :-(
>  > Is it supposed to I am afraid I must have been absent during the 
> time
>  > when this was decided...
>
> I think we might be mixing semantics. There is a difference between 
> the lifetime of the agreement instance and the state of the agreement 
> instance to be observed. The terminate message is supposed to move the 
> agreement state to afterObserved while the WSRF lifetime addresses how 
> long the Agreement service is supposed to be around. We might argue 
> that thi sshould be the same but, in fact, I tend to think to keep it 
> separate.
>
> Heiko