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

RE: detailed proposal for issues i024 and i026

From: <paul.downey@bt.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 14:44:08 -0000
Message-ID: <2B7789AAED12954AAD214AEAC13ACCEF1A0333B6@i2km02-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net>
To: <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>


thanks, i'll raise our concerns as a separate issue.


Steve Vinoski wrote:

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?

Received on Tuesday, 15 February 2005 14:43:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:04:08 UTC