W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing@w3.org > February 2005

RE: detailed proposal for issues i024 and i026

From: Vinoski, Stephen <Steve.Vinoski@iona.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 15:59:34 -0500
Message-ID: <13AC4E67178F4D4EA31BB1BA645303133D543D@amereast-ems2.boston.amer.iona.com>
To: <paul.downey@bt.com>
Cc: <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
paul.downey@bt.com wrote:
> i personally don't like the idea of sending WSDL information
> in an EPR,
> it seems to me that a WSDL is good way to describe messages being
> exchanged on the wire, but tying the messages themselves to a
> particular description is limiting.

Not sure I follow, Paul. First, the EPR already allows WSDL information to optionally appear -- it's been in the specification all along. Second, nobody is forcing you use WSDL information in your EPRs -- the metadata section, and all the WSDL that can appear within it, are optional.

> Given i may elect to describe an individual message exchange in any
> one of a number of WSDLs each with their own abstract interface
> name, sentences like "it MUST match *the* WSDL 2.0 interface
> name ...."
> trouble me somewhat.

The [selected interface] property is already a part of the spec. If you choose to use it together with a WSDL 2.0 [service] property in an EPR, and noting that a WSDL 2.0 service element can hold only a single interface name, then how could it make any sense whatsoever for the two interface names not to match?

--steve
Received on Monday, 7 February 2005 20:59:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:35:03 GMT