W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing-comments@w3.org > March 2006

LC ISSUE: Consistency of examples

From: David Hull <dmh@tibco.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 15:26:56 -0500
To: public-ws-addressing-comments@w3.org
Message-id: <44299C10.9000202@tibco.com>
The WSDL binding includes several examples:

    * Example 2-1 shows WSDL 2.0 metadata for an InventoryService endpoint
    * Example 2-2 shows WSDL 1.1 metadata for the same.
    * Example 3-1 shows the use of wsaw:UsingAddressing in a WSDL 2.0
      binding for a "Check Availability" endpoint for a reservation system.
    * Example 3-2 shows the use of wsaw:UsingAddressing in a WSDL 1.1
      binding, but for a "Get Last Trade Price" endpoint for a stock
      quote service.
    * Example 3-3 shows the use of wsaw:Anonymous in a WSDL 2.0 binding
      for a "Get Last Trade Price" endpoint for a stock quote service.
    * Example 3-4 shows the use of wsoap:module in a WSDL 2.0 for a
      "Check Availability" endpoint for a reservation system.
    * Example 4-1 shows the use of wsaw:Action in a WSDL 2.0 binding for
      a "Get Last Trade Price" endpoint for a stock quote service.
    * Example 4-2 shows WSDL 1.1 for the same.
    * (examples 4-3 and 4-4 show the structure of action patterns for
      WSDL 2.0)
    * Example 4-5 shows the use of action patterns for a WSDL 2.0
      binding for a "Get Last Trade Price" endpoint for a stock quote
      service.
    * (examples 4-6 and 4-7 show the structure of action patterns for
      WSDL 2.1)
    * Examples 4-8and 4-9 show the use of action patterns for a WSDL 1.1
      binding for a "Get Last Trade Price" endpoint for a stock quote
      service.

By way of comparison, the WSDL primer uses the same InventoryService
example as 2-1 and 2-2.

At the very least, examples 3-1 and 3-2 should agree.  Using different
examples there just obscures the real differences.

IMHO, it would be best to use the WSDL primer examples throughout. 
Failing that, it would be good at least to move away from the stock
quote example, as this sort of simple GET is not the best fit for
async.  It's much easier (at least for me) to imagine a reservations
system that mainly passes messages but happens to use request-response
for some operations than it is to imagine a system that would poll for
prices but expect the polled response to come back asynchronously.

In most cases this should just mean changing the appropriate "name"
attributes.  If more needs to be shown, it can be copied from the WSDL
2.0 primer.
Received on Tuesday, 28 March 2006 20:27:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:19:39 GMT