30 min read


Choreography versus Orchestration

Choreography and orchestration, in an SOA context, pertain to the use of processes that span multiple participants, with message traffic moving in all directions according to a complex set of rules. Choreography and orchestration are attempts to coordinate or control all of this activity. They attack the problem by putting rigor on how message exchanges are represented, and by organizing the overall process using the right set of control flow patterns. Use cases in this area can be inter-organizational (for example, B2B commerce involving buyer, seller, and wholesaler), or intra-organizational if the organization is large enough and the participants act as separate organizations (for example, bank account processes spanning the front office, the back office, and the fraud department).

By convention, choreography describes the global protocol governing how individual participants interact with one another. Each participant has its own process, but choreography is a master process that acts as a kind of traffic cop. Significantly, the choreography process does not actually run. It is not a central broker in the live message exchange, but merely a message exchange protocol. If the participants follow the protocol, the live exchange will run as smoothly as if there were a central broker. ‘Traffic cop’ is not exactly right then; choreography is more like a set of traffic rules. To mix metaphors, choreography teaches the participant processes how to dance as a group.

The process for each participant is referred to as an orchestration process, whose principal job is to build a flow of control around (that is, to orchestrate) its interactions with partners. Orchestration processes are difficult to model, especially those faced with complex combinations of inbound events. If the process is subject to choreography, its structure can be derived from the choreography; in fact, as we’ll see, there are tools that can generate skeletal orchestration processes from choreography definitions. The idea is simple: the choreography tells the complete story, so the participant can determine its role by isolating the parts in which it’s involved. Not all orchestrations, alas, have a choreography to guide them (not all inter-organizational domains have a precise protocol defined). If the use case is sufficiently complex, the participant ought to create its own choreography anyway, not to share with its partners but simply to improve its own understanding of its orchestration.

An orchestration process has public and private activities. The public activities are those that are required by the choreography. Private activities are there to meet internal requirements, but are not visible to partners. The next figure shows the public activities of the orchestration process for an energy retailer. The steps shown (for example, Send Request to Distributor) are those required by the enrollment choreography, in which the retailer is but one participant.

Modeling Orchestration and Choreography in Service Oriented Architecture
The next figure shows the same process with private steps (for example, Update Account) included. In the figure, steps marked with a P are public steps. We examine the energy example in detail in this article.

Modeling Orchestration and Choreography in Service Oriented Architecture
Web Services Choreography Description Language (WS-CDL) is the leading choreography language; Business Process Execution Language (BPEL) is the dominant process orchestration language. Although these XML-based languages feature a similar flow-oriented design style, only BPEL is meant to have an actual runtime platform: BPEL processes run; WS-CDL choreographies are protocols.

BPEL is better known than WS-CDL in part because orchestration is more prevalent than choreography. BPEL’s user community is much larger than WS-CDL’s. Today, every company is building an SOA platform, and if they don’t use BPEL as their SOA orchestration language, they use something similar. The user community for choreography consists of industry committees that publish protocols such as the enrollment and funds transfer choreographies we discuss in this article. Choreography might also work as part of a large organization’s enterprise architecture, helping to sort out the communication of the organization’s numerous systems. Few of these committees use WS-CDL to document their protocols anyway. Choreography is more often documented less formally using English descriptions, flowchart diagrams, and an XML message schema.

Examples-Energy Enrollment and Email Bank Transfer

The two examples from industry that showcase our technique for modeling choreography and orchestration are the enrollment of customers with retailers in a deregulated energy market and the procedure for transferring funds by email between two banks.

In the energy market for a state or small country there are three parties: customers (who use electricity to power their homes), retailers (who sell electricity to customers), and the distributor (who supplies the electricity). Before deregulation, the distributor sold electricity directly to customers; there were no retailers back then. Deregulation introduced competition and broke up the distributor’s monopoly. Customers can now buy electricity from one of many competing retailers. The distributor is now merely a supplier, having moved out of the retail sales business. When a customer enrolls with a retailer, the retailer uses the following protocol to complete the enrollment:

  • The retailer submits the customer’s request for enrollment to the distributor.
  • The distributor responds in one of the three ways. If there is a problem with the request (for example, the customer has another enrollment in progress, or the customer has been flagged for fraud), the distributor sends a rejection to the retailer. If the request is valid and the customer is not currently enrolled with a retailer, the distributor sends an acceptance to the retailer. If the customer is currently enrolled with a competing retailer but intends to switch, the distributor sends a notice of pending switch to both the retailers.
  • In the acceptance case, there is a 10-day waiting period during which the customer may cancel the enrollment. To cancel, the customer contacts the retailer, who forwards the cancellation request to the distributor. Assuming the customer does not cancel, at the end of the waiting period, the distributor sends a completion event to the retailer. The customer is now enrolled with the retailer.
  • In the switch case, there is also a 10-day waiting period. To cancel, the customer contacts the initiating retailer (that is, the retailer to whom the customer is switching). The initiating retailer forwards the cancellation to the distributor, who then sends completion events to both retailers indicating that the customer will remain enrolled with the original retailer. Assuming the customer does not cancel, at the end of the waiting period, the distributor sends completion events to both retailers indicating that the customer is now enrolled with the initiating retailer.

Email bank transfer is a protocol for wiring money by email. It works as follows:

  • The person sending the money contacts his bank (the Sender bank), specifying from which account to draw the funds, how much money to send, and the name and email address of the recipient.
  • The Sender bank sets aside the amount and sends an email to the recipient with instructions on how to complete the transfer.
  • The Sender bank sets aside the amount and sends an email to the recipient with instructions on how to complete the transfer.
  • The Recipient bank submits the transfer request to the Sender bank.
  • The Sender bank accepts, and the funds are moved into the recipient’s account, completing the transfer.

At any point, either the sender or recipient may cancel the transfer, and the transaction is automatically canceled if not completed within 30 days. On cancellation, the funds are returned to the sender’s account. (We assume both banks are members of the email transfer programme.)

The following figure shows the most common scenarios in these examples:

Modeling Orchestration and Choreography in Service Oriented Architecture

Modeling Choreography in BPMN

In BPMN, two possible models for choreography are as follows:

  1. Invisible hub: Although choreography is fundamentally decentralized, we imagine there is a central hub through which all messages pass, and model the choreography as the process of that hub.
  2. Sum of parts: The public process of each participant (that is, the process containing steps required by the choreography, with private steps omitted) is drawn in a swim lane. Message flow (dashed lines) is used to show inter-participant communication.

A sum-of-parts model for the enrollment choreography is shown in next figure.

Modeling Orchestration and Choreography in Service Oriented Architecture
There are three swim lanes in the diagram: one for the distributor (referred to as Distributor), one for the initiating retailer (referred to as Retailer), and one for the current retailer (referred to as CurrentRetailer). Each lane contains the public process of the participant. The dashed arrows show the flow of messages between participants. The enrollment choreography is, according to this approach, the combination of the public processes of each participant plus the message flow that connects them.

The choreography begins when the customer enrolls with the retailer (Cust Enrolls in the Retailer lane). The retailer then submits the enrollment request to the distributor by calling Dist.enroll. This call sends a message to the distributor, which triggers the event Enroll (the first step in the Distributor lane). The Distributor process is now underway, and it responds to the enrollment request either by rejecting the request, accepting it, or notifying the initiating retailer and the current retailer of a pending switch. The distributor rejects by calling Ret.reject, and, as the dashed line signifies, triggers the event Dist.reject in the retailer. The remaining steps are straightforward.

The sum-of-parts method is intuitive, and variations on it can be found in business process literature (in the WSCI and BPMN specifications, for example). Sum-of-parts, however, has two disadvantages. First, the message flow creates an indecipherable clutter, making complex choreographies almost impossible to read; the swim lanes, for their part, use a lot of real estate. Aesthetics aside, sum-of-parts fails to present a global, consolidated view of the choreography. We grow bug-eyed trying to keep track of what each participant is doing. We are forced to watch each dancer rather than the group as a whole.

The invisible-hub representation is comparatively compact. The next figure, which shows the enrollment choreography as a hub, has fewer steps than the sum-of-parts equivalent, and it makes do without lanes or dashed lines.

Modeling Orchestration and Choreography in Service Oriented Architecture
The hub works as you would expect a hub to work: it listens for inbound events and routes them to their intended recipients. The act of receiving an event and sending it elsewhere is a single unit of work (shown in the figure as a rounded box with a dashed line), known as an interaction. The hub choreography represents the communication of its participants as a process of interactions.

Before walking through this process, consider the following notational conventions:

  • The event with a thin border (Ret.enroll(Dist)) is the process’ start event. Events with a double-line border (for example, Dist.reject(Ret)) are intermediate events, which occur over the course of the process. Intermediate events can be used in three ways: for cancellation, for deferred choice, or simply to wait for the next message before continuing. The enrollment hub has examples of the latter two forms. We’ll come back to cancellation while discussing the email transfer hub.
  • Deferred choice, also known as an event pick, uses a diamond containing an inscribed star (known as an event-based gateway) with arrows leading to a set of intermediate events. The intent is to wait for one of those events to occur, execute its activities, and discard the remaining events. There are three deferred choices in the enrollment hub. The first occurs in three steps, and selects one of the three events: Dis.reject(Ret), Dist.accept(ret), or Dist.pendingSwitch(Ret, CurrRet). If, say, Dist.reject(Ret) occurs first, the activity Ret1.reject(Dist) is executed.
  • The intermediate event Dist.switchCompleteCurrent(Ret, CurrRet) simply waits for something to happen before continuing. This event is sandwiched between the activities Dist.cancel(Ret) and Ret.switchCompleteCurrent, CurrRet.switchCompleteCurrent(Dist). Thus, when the first activity completes, that branch of the process waits for the event to occur before continuing with the second activity.
  • Events have labels of the form Sender.msg (Recipients), meaning that the event received by the hub is a message from the sender bound for the specified recipients. (There must be at least one.) Thus, Dist.switchCompleteCurrent(Ret, CurrRet) is the message switchCompleteCurrent from the distributor (Dist) to both the initiating retailer (Ret) and the current retailer (CurrRet).
  • Send tasks (rounded boxes with a straight border) are labeled Recipient.msg(Sender), meaning that hub is sending the specified message to the recipient and is indicating that the message originated with the specified sender. In Dist.enroll(Ret), for instance, the hub sends the message enroll to the distributor (Dist), and is indicating to the distributor that this message came from the retailer (Ret).
  • If the event that preceded it specifies multiple recipients, the send task sends the message to each recipient. Each send counts as one interaction.Ret.pendingSwitch, CurrRet.pendingSwitch (Dist), for example, sends the message pendingSwitch to both the retailer (Ret) and the current retailer (CurrRet), and thus spans two interactions.
  • A rounded box with a dashed border, known in BPMN as a group, pairs up an event and a send task. Thus, the grouping of Ret.enroll(Dist) and Dist.enroll(Ret) means that when the hub receives the message enroll from the retailer bound for the distributor, it sends that message to the distributor, indicating to the distributor that the message originated with the retailer.
  • A group that contains multiple interactions has a label in the top-center of the dashed box indicating the number of interactions. The number of interactions is equal to the number of recipients.

The enrollment hub diagram reads as follows:

  • The choreography begins with the interaction in which the retailer sends an enrollment request to the distributor. For convenience, this interaction is labeled a in the figure.
  • Exactly one of the three interactions can happen next: the distributor sends a rejection to the retailer (b); the distributor sends an acceptance to the retailer (c); or the distributor sends a notice of pending switch to both the initiating and current retailers (d).
  • Exactly one of the two interactions can follow acceptance: the retailer sends a cancellation to the distributor e, or the distributor sends a completion event to the retailer (f).
  • In the pending switch case, one of the two interactions follows the notice of pending switch: the initiating retailer sends a cancellation to the distributor (g); or the distributor sends a switch completion event to both the initiating and current retailers indicating that the current retailer won (h).
  • If the switch is cancelled, the distributor sends a switch completion event to both retailers indicating that the initiating retailer won (i).

The choreography has 12 interactions assembled in a process flow. (There are nine groups, but three of them have two interactions each.) Reading the diagram means spotting the 12 interactions and traversing the control flow that connects them.

The email transfer choreography hub, shown in the next figure, is somewhat more complex.

Modeling Orchestration and Choreography in Service Oriented Architecture
The email transfer hub reads as follows:
  • The choreography begins when the sender submits the transfer request to the sender bank (a). The sender bank can reject the request (b), or accept it (c). The acceptance event in c is routed to both the sender and the recipient, and thus results in two interactions.
  • The remainder of the hub process is a loop that continues until the transfer is completed. The loop is modeled as a BPMN embedded sub-process labeled Loop. The arched arrow pointing counter-clockwise in the bottom-center of the sub-process box denotes that this sub-process is iterative.
  • In the first step of the loop, the recipient requests her bank to transfer the funds into his or her account (d). The recipient’s bank either rejects (e) or accepts (f) the request. In the rejection case, the recipient’s bank sends a rejection notice to the recipient. In the next iteration of the loop, the recipient can try again.
  • In the acceptance case, the recipient’s bank sends a transfer request to the sender’s bank. The sender’s bank can either accept (g) or reject (h) the request. In the acceptance case, the sender’s bank sends a transferOK message to both the recipient’s bank and the sender. The recipient’s bank then notifies the recipient (i), and the choreography completes. (The Set Done task sets the loop’s continuation condition to false, which causes the loop to exit and the hub process to complete.)
  • In the rejection case, the sender’s bank sends a rejectTransfer message to the recipient’s bank, and the recipient’s bank notifies the recipient of this (j). In the next iteration of the loop, the recipient can try again.
  • While the loop is executing, any of the parties may cancel the request (k). The label in the event *.cancel (SenderBank) informs the hub to listen for a cancel message from any party—the * works as a wildcard—and to route that message to the sender’s bank. The sender’s bank, in turn, sends an abort message (l) to the sender, the recipient, and the recipient’s bank (the bank into which the recipient is currently requesting the transfer). Interaction (k) is an example of a cancellation intermediate event; it terminates the loop and transition into a series of cancellation activities.

Choreographies are not executable, as we discussed previously. A choreography is a protocol, a set of traffic laws. It is, emphatically, not a central hub through which all participant interactions flow. Our hub model is merely a specification of how the individual participants should communicate. There are countless senders, recipients, and banks in the world of email transfer, but there is no hub that helps them talk to each other. The invisible hub for email transfer is merely a model; it is every bit as hypothetical as the invisible hand of Adam Smith’s free-market economy. The economy is self-powered, and does not require the intervention of a hand; email transfer goes on without a hub.

Still, the BPMN hub model is more than an informative picture. As we’ll see, it maps easily to WS-CDL, and it serves as the basis for the generation of participant stubs and a choreography ‘protocol’ tester.

Our BPMN method is practical and built with implementation in mind. Choreography modeling is also a hot topic in the academic world. Useful papers in this arena include Inheritance of Interorganizational Workflows: How to agree to disagree without loosing control? (Wil van der Aalst,” BETA Working Paper Series, BP46, Eindhoven University, http://is.tm.tue.nl/staff/wvdaalst/publications/p109.pdf) and ‘Let’s Dance’ (servicechoreographies.com, http://sky.fit.qut.edu.au/~dumas/LetsDance/01-Overview.html).

The Invisible Hub in BPEL

BPEL is principally an orchestration language, as just discussed, but it can also be used to model invisible hub choreographies. The code shown in the next figure is a simplified version of an actual BPEL implementation of the enrollment hub.

Modeling Orchestration and Choreography in Service Oriented Architecture
The mapping from the BPMN hub to this BPEL implementation is straightforward:
  • The event that starts the choreography in BPMN (Ret.enroll(Dist)) is receive that creates the BPEL process instance, marked as Start Event in the figure.
  • An intermediate event that simply waits for a message between activities (for example, Dist.switchCompleteCurrent (Ret, CurrRet) in the BPMN model) is a BPEL receive, such as the line marked Intermediate Event in the figure.
  • Deferred choice is a BPEL pick. The events in the choice are onMessage handlers. For example, the deferred choice in the BPMN model of Dist.reject(Ret), Dist.accept(Ret) and Dist.pendingSwitch(Ret, CurrRet) is the pick marked as Deferred Choice in the figure. The handlers are the three onMessage blocks that sit underneath the pick.
  • Send tasks are BPEL invoke activities. For example, Dist.enroll(Ret) in the BPMN representation becomes the invoke in the line marked Send Task in the figure.
  • The set of partner links used in the BPEL process is the union of all sender and recipient participants in the hub. Many partner links are bidirectional: they can either call the BPEL process or the BPEL process can call the partner link. The three partner links in this example, which are referred to in each receive, invoke, and onMessage tag are Ret, Dist, and CurrRet.
  • BPEL supports dynamic partner links (where the BPEL process determines the physical address of its partner service at runtime). The series of four steps marked Dynamic partner links in the figure provides an example. The initial receive is a message from the distributor intended for one of the two retailers (either the current or the initiating retailer). The invoke that follows sends the message to that retailer. The endpoint of that retailer is resolved at runtime, based on the contents of the receive message. The next receive is a message from the distributor intended for the second retailer, and the invoke that follows sends the message to that retailer, again resolving the endpoint at runtime. In the majority of BPEL processes, partner links are resolved at deployment time, but that approach does not work in scenarios like ours.
  • An interaction in which the sender sends to N recipients is modeled in BPEL as N separate inbound events and invokes. The series of four steps discussed in the previous bullet (and marked with Send to Multiple in the figure) provides an example. These steps model the activity Dist.switchCompleteCurrent (Ret, CurrRet) from the BPMN hub. In the BPEL code, the effect of the distributor sending the message switchCompleteCurrent to both the initiating and current retailers is achieved by having the hub receive the message from the distributor twice (using a receive), in each case forwarding the message (using an invoke) to one of the retailers. Dynamic partner links are used to resolve the endpoint of the recipient.

The figure maps lines of code in the BPEL hub to interaction groups in the BPMN model. The first two lines, for example, represent group A. The reader can easily verify the mapping for groups B to I.

There are two advantages to having the hub model in BPEL form:

  1. BPEL’s XML form is an alternative to the leading XML choreography representation, WS-CDL (discussed in the next section). If we require an XML representation of choreography, BPEL might be a better choice than WS-CDL, because it is more familiar and has broader tool support.
  2. The BPEL hub is executable! There are numerous BPEL runtime platforms that can run this process as an actual hub. Granted, choreographies are not meant to run as part of the live exchange of actual participants, but having an executable version enables two important types of testing, shown in the next figure: unit testing of the choreography itself, and protocol testing of a particular participant. In unit testing, we build a Test Harness, driven by scripted scenarios, that sends messages to the hub and compares responses received with those expected. In protocol testing, we build the public process of a participant (say the retailer), but point it to the hub rather than its actual partners. We can embellish the hub to use test scripts to control how it responds. Once we have tested all of the scenarios and verified that the participant behaves as required, we can point the participant process to the real partners and go live

Modeling Orchestration and Choreography in Service Oriented Architecture

Choreography in WS-CDL with Pi4SOA

The description of choreography in WS-CDL with P14SOA is as follows:

Defining Roles and Relationships

Web Services Choreography Description Language (WS-CDL) is a specification from the W3C (Web Services Choreography Description Language Version 1.0, http://www.w3.org/TR/ws-cdl-10) for building choreographies in XML form. Like our invisible hub model, WS-CDL takes the global view: a choreography is not the sum of the public processes of its participants, but a single control flow of interactions.

The WS-CDL language is exceedingly rich and best learned by example. In this section, we study how the enrollment choreography is represented in WS-CDL. Rather than building the choreography’s XML from scratch, we use a visual modelling tool known as pi4SOA. pi4SOA, an open-source implementation that plugs into Eclipse, is one of the few WS-CDL implementations available today.

The first step in building a WS-CDL choreography is to define participants and their structural relationships. The following figure shows the enrollment choreography open in the Participants, Roles, and Relationships tab of the pi4SOA editor.


Modeling Orchestration and Choreography in Service Oriented Architecture
There are five participants (shown with building icons) in the figure: Distributor, Retailer, CurrentRetailer, Customer (to model a customer’s interaction with a retailer), and DistributorBizCal (a subsystem of the distributor to model the management of business calendars for completion and switch periods). Each participant has a role of the same name (designated by a stick-man icon), and each role has a behavior named for its role: Distributor’s behavior is DistributorBehavior, Retailer’s behaviour is RetailerBehavior, and so on. In WS-CDL, a behavior is a web service interface, and a role is a group of behaviors. A role can have multiple behaviors and a participant can have multiple roles. In our case, each participant has one role and one participant.

The lines connecting roles are called relationships. There are four relationships: RD is the relationship between Retailer and Distributor, CRD the relationship between CurrentRetailer and Distributor, RC the relationship between Retailer and Customer, and DInt the relationship between Distributor and DistributorBizCal. When two roles have a relationship, they can interact by calling each other’s services.

The next figure shows the Base Types tab of the choreography editor.

Modeling Orchestration and Choreography in Service Oriented Architecture
To the participants, roles, and relationships defined above, we add four important elements: information types, tokens, token locators, and channel types. An information type is an XML data type (generally based on an XML schema) exchanged during interactions. A token is a field in an information type. A token locator defines how to extract—generally using an XPath expression—the token from the information type. Our choreography has one information type, called EnergyMsg with five tokens and token locators (custID, retailer, txID, currentRetailer, and reason).

A channel type is an inbound communication endpoint for a role behavior. In the enrollment choreography, there are channels for the retailer, current retailer and distributor. Each channel type is configured for one-way asynchronous requests only. Hence, Retailer receives requests on its RetailerChannel; CurrentRetailer receives requests on its CurrentRetailerChannel; and Distributor receives requests on its DistributorChannel. Combining our definitions of relationships and channels, we have the following communication structure:

    • In the relationship RD, Retailer sends to Distributor on DistributorChannel, and Distributor sends to Retailer on RetailerChannel


  • In the relationship CRD, Distributor sends to CurrentRetailer on CurrentRetailerChannel. (CurrentRetailer could also send to Distributor on DistributorChannel, but the use case does not require it.)
  • In the relationship RC, Customer sends to Retailer on RetailerChannel. (Customer does not have a channel, so the reverse direction is not permitted.)
  • In the relationship DInt, DistributorBizCal sends to Distributor on DistributorChannel. (DistributorBizCal does not have a channel, so the reverse direction is not permitted.)

Building a Control Flow of Interactions

The next figure shows the overall control flow that defines the behaviour of the choreography. There are three steps. The first, RequestC2R, is an interaction in which the Customer participant sends an enrollment request to the Retailer participant. The request has the information type EnrollmentMsg, and is sent on RetailerChannel as part of the RC relationship. In the interaction that follows, RequestR2D, the retailer forwards that request to the distributor; or, in the language of WS-CDL, Retailer sends the request with information type EnrollmentMsg on the DistributorChannel as part of the RD relationship. The step that follows, enrollmentResult, is a flow construct known as a choice. There are three possible outcomes of an enrollment request—acceptance, rejection, or a pending switch. The choice allows exactly one to occur.

Modeling Orchestration and Choreography in Service Oriented Architecture
The next figure shows the acceptance and rejection paths; the switch path is omitted for brevity. The rejection path (housed in a sequence labelled rejectEnrollment) has one interaction, RejectD2R, in which the distributor sends a rejection message to the retailer. The more complicated acceptance path is housed in the sequence labelled newEnrollment, which begins with the interaction in which the distributor notifies the retailer that the enrollment is accepted (AcceptD2R). Next is a silent action, setCompletionTimer, in which the distributor sets a timer that expires at the end of the ten-day cancellation period. A silent action in WS-CDL is a private operation performed by a role.

Modeling Orchestration and Choreography in Service Oriented Architecture
The acceptance path has a nested choice, labelled completionPeriod, which documents the two possible outcomes for an accepted enrolment: periodExpired is a sequence that specifies what happens when the ten-day timer expires, and cancel handles the case in which the customer cancels the enrollment during the cancellation period. Each path contains two interactions. In the periodExpired sequence, the periodExpired interaction (sent from DistributorBizCal to Distributor by the DInt relationship) notifies the distributor that time is up, whereupon the distributor sends a completion event to the retailer (CompleteD2R). In the cancel sequence, the customer cancels with the retailer (CancelC2R by the RC relationship), and the retailer, in turn, cancels with the distributor (CancelR2D by the RD relationship).

The following is a snippet of the WS-CDL XML encoding of the enrollment choreography, covering the acceptance case only. For the sake of simplicity, numerous details are omitted:

                         name="RequestC2R" operation="enroll">         fromRoleTypeRef="tns:Customer"
                     relationshipType="tns:RC" toRoleTypeRef="tns:Retailer"/>                                                                                   interaction name="RejectD2R" operation="reject">                                                           interaction name="AcceptD2R" operation="accept">                                                                                          

The two key elements in this example are choice and interaction. They are mapped to our hub model as follows:

    • A receive-send pair in the hub is a WS-CDL interaction. In WS-CDL, a relationship is defined between sender and recipient, and the recipient has a channel on which the sender sends the message. An example of this is the interaction shown in bold from the customer (fromRoleTypeRef=”tns: Customer”) to the retailer (toRoleTypeRef=”tns:Retailer”) on the RC relationship (relationshipType=”tns:RC”). The event arrives on the retailer’s channel (channelVariable=”tns:retailerChannel”).
    • A deferred choice in the hub is a choice structure in WS-CDL. Generally, a path in the choice is a sequence. The set of events from which we are choosing is the set of first interactions on each path. The main choice structure in the choreography, shown in bold, has two interactions from which to choose: acceptance and rejection interactions (also shown in bold). The interaction that actually occurs determines which path is taken.


Generating a BPEL Role Process

In addition to producing conformant WS-CDL code, pi4SOA’s capabilities include scenario testing and BPEL and Java endpoint generation. The BPEL generation feature is especially useful, as BPEL is a suitable implementation choice to build orchestration process of a given participant. Here, in pseudo-code, is the BPEL process that pi4SOA generates for the distributor:

    receive operation="enroll" partnerLink="RD" 
             portType="DistributorBehavior"/>           switch name="enrollmentResult">                                                                                      

Two salient features of this process are the mapping of interactions and the conversion of the WS-CDL choice to a BPEL switch as follows:

  1. An interaction in which the distributor is the sender is a BPEL invoke activity whose partner link is the WS-CDL relationship and whose port type is the recipient’s behavior. The operation element in the invoke matches the one specified in the interaction. The invoke shown in bold, for example, which is sent to the retailer, has partner link RD, port type RetailerBehavior, and operation accept.
  2. An interaction in which the participant is the recipient is either a receive activity or an onMessage handler in a pick. The partner link is the name of the relationship, and port type is the participant’s behavior. The operation element, as before, matches that specified in the interaction. The bolded receive in the BPEL sample is the enroll operation on the partner link RD and port type DistributorBehavior.

The WS-CDL choice is a switch for the BPEL distributor process (as the bolded comment in the switch line indicates), because the distributor begins each path of the choice by sending a message. From the distributor’s perspective, the choice represents its decision to reject the request, accept it, or initiate a pending switch. Each case in the switch handles one of these possibilities. The retailer, on the other hand, begins each path by waiting for an event from the distributor. From the retailer’s point of view, the choice is a pick, as in the following snippet:

pick name="enrollmentResult">  

We have only scratched the surface of WS-CDL. Other notable capabilities are state alignment, coordination, and channel passing. WS-CDL’s supporters boast that their language has its foundations in the Pi Calculus, a mathematical scheme for describing concurrent processes and how they pass messages to each other. Robin Milner, the mathematician who devised the Pi Calculus, is an advisor to the WS-CDL working group.

Sadly, WS-CDL has not gained much traction in the field. There are scant tools to build WS-CDL choreographies and, frankly, not many use cases that require choreography. Few people who practice SOA technology have even heard of this language. WS-CDL is winning the mathematics battle but losing the marketing war.


Choreography is the global protocol governing the interaction of SOA processes partnering to achieve some business ends. An orchestration process is a process whose principal job is to build a flow of control around its interactions with partners. WS-CDL is the dominant choreography standard. BPEL is the dominant orchestration standard. Both standards provide a way to build process flows in an XML form, though only BPEL processes are meant to actually execute. The modeling tool pi4SOA is ideal for building WS-CDL examples. Key WS-CDL elements are interaction (which corresponds to the receive-send pair in the invisible hub) and choice (a kind of deferred choice in the choreography’s flow of control. pi4SOA generates skeletal BPEL code for each participant in the choreography.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here