RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 77 - (was RE: [wsbpel] Possible new issue: BPEL cannot handle some SOAP header bindings)

["Furniss, Peter" <Peter.Furniss@choreology.com>]

missed a word in my message. shouldn't type late at night.

> More generally, it would seem very plausible that there are 
> semantics to be communicated that are both sufficiently 
> general to be factored out as headers, and have an impact on 
> the required processing at business level
> - this is just a question for correlation sets. We 
           ^ NOT
> (choreology) have already suggested this in the business 
> transaction submission, but one could imagine it applying to 
> security tokens (if previously checked, no need to recheck), 
> expiry times. And, digging further down the stack, could one 
> have a single process definition that was dynamically bound 
> to but whose behaviour depended on where the other party was 
> (intranet or extranet domain name ? - oh, I guess you could 
> get that from the partnerLink information)

Peter