I would like to offer this convoluted (was : "simplified" ) declaration:
The states conversation is also one of views and frames. The processing
model of each service also may vary but for now assume that it is a
simple 1 response to 1 request.
If you view each atomic transmission, one would only perceive a
sender->receiver relationship between two entities. It is not until one
views the processing model of the service invocation that the concepts
of request and response become visible ( each one is an atomic
"send<->receive" action ).
For example "A sends a message to B". Unless you know more, trying to
label A or B as provider or consumer is impossible. By framing the A->B
message as part of a MEP, you can then deduce that A->B is the first ME
and if succeeded by B->A (1-*) => A = Service Consumer and B = Service
Provider.
Hence, each of the provider's service interface and the consumers
service interfaces function as both provider and consumer in the right
context. This is yet another reason why we should not have SC in the
Core RM.
Duane
>
>
