2008/11/24 Mark Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 11:45 AM, Steve Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> A little bit pie in the sky here, nice in theory but a killer in practice >> >> So as an example. >> >> Imagine a message about a prisoner requesting a specific training class. >> >> The message would have to include > > No, it wouldn't. The author is talking about stateless messaging - > though it's a little difficult to tell - and all that requires is that > the message contain all the information needed to understand its > meaning. If the sender doesn't want the message to communicate why > the prisoner is behind bars, then they shouldn't include it. If they > do, then they should. It's just that simple.
Which makes it redundant from an archival perspective as it just includes the message which says A-B happens. This can be a reasonable approach (although I'd still recommend references, sending a URI for instance if using REST). You end up with a view of the messages (execution context from an RM perspective) but not the broader service interaction (policy, etc). Steve > > I wrote a blog post last year on some of the subtleties of stateless & > self-descriptive messaging; > > http://www.markbaker.ca/blog/2007/11/users-and-self-description/ Interesting post. Steve > > Mark. >
