This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
Difference between revisions of "Talk:Communication Process Model"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Rene spronk (talk | contribs) |
|||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
I think that the description of an Transmission Pattern needs to be different, at the moment its description is the same as the Interaction Pattern. As I understand it, the Transmission Pattern could be described as ''A sequence of exchanges between the Application Roles.'' | I think that the description of an Transmission Pattern needs to be different, at the moment its description is the same as the Interaction Pattern. As I understand it, the Transmission Pattern could be described as ''A sequence of exchanges between the Application Roles.'' | ||
| + | :Please re-read the descriptions carefully - a transmission pattern is transmission related: a transmission and its '''direct''' responses. An interaction pattern covers a much longer and workflow oriented conversation that may be comprised of 1 or more transmission patterns. Roles are about compliance of applications, so depending on the scope of the role these could be defined to fit with a transmission pattern (most of the current appliocation roles have such a limited scope), or with an interaction pattern (this is being discussed right now as the future direction of application roles: partcipants in activity diagrams). [[User:Rene spronk|Rene spronk]] 09:05, 30 Jun 2006 (CDT) | ||
| + | Thanks for that I see what you mean that Interaction Pattern is still a sequence of interaction but are related in the same business process (high level), and the Transmission pattern is the transmission and the direct responses from the transmission more lower level.[[User:Meena Pillai]] | ||
| + | ::Yes. The Transmission Pattern is intended to be a "Transmission" view (i.e. the thing a [[Message Adapter]] or your average WSDL would be aware of). At that level one would not know about the entire business-process.. [[User:Rene spronk|Rene spronk]] 07:31, 4 Jul 2006 (CDT) | ||
Latest revision as of 12:31, 4 July 2006
I think that the description of an Transmission Pattern needs to be different, at the moment its description is the same as the Interaction Pattern. As I understand it, the Transmission Pattern could be described as A sequence of exchanges between the Application Roles.
- Please re-read the descriptions carefully - a transmission pattern is transmission related: a transmission and its direct responses. An interaction pattern covers a much longer and workflow oriented conversation that may be comprised of 1 or more transmission patterns. Roles are about compliance of applications, so depending on the scope of the role these could be defined to fit with a transmission pattern (most of the current appliocation roles have such a limited scope), or with an interaction pattern (this is being discussed right now as the future direction of application roles: partcipants in activity diagrams). Rene spronk 09:05, 30 Jun 2006 (CDT)
Thanks for that I see what you mean that Interaction Pattern is still a sequence of interaction but are related in the same business process (high level), and the Transmission pattern is the transmission and the direct responses from the transmission more lower level.User:Meena Pillai
- Yes. The Transmission Pattern is intended to be a "Transmission" view (i.e. the thing a Message Adapter or your average WSDL would be aware of). At that level one would not know about the entire business-process.. Rene spronk 07:31, 4 Jul 2006 (CDT)
