W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org > July 2005

RE: LC84b resolution

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 07:11:53 -0700
Message-ID: <7DA77BF2392448449D094BCEF67569A50854F7B2@RED-MSG-30.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Booth, David \(HP Software - Boston\)" <dbooth@hp.com>
Cc: <public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org>

The WG discussed this some more, but did not reach consensus to pursue
moving @action from WS-A to core WSDL.  I believe the timing and
coordination overhead required to do this contributed to making it
unattractive to the WG.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) [mailto:dbooth@hp.com]
> Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2005 5:10 AM
> To: Jonathan Marsh
> Cc: public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org
> Subject: Re: LC84b resolution
> 
> Regarding LC84b, I really think that the inability to specify the
> action for each message represents a significant factoring error.  WS
> Addressing provides a fine mechanism for doing this, but the
> capability belongs in WSDL natively: abstractly, there is hardly
> anything more fundamental to the definition of an interface than the
> notion of what is intended to happen when a particular message is
> received.
> 
> Grouping messages into operations (via MEPs) is useful, but in reality
> it is somewhat arbitrary, as the same sequence of messages could be
> grouped in multiple ways.  But when a message is sent from one party
> to another, there is almost always some kind of intent, whether it is
> explicitly stated or not.  Furthermore, if an action attribute has a
> reasonable default value in WSDL, then its existence would place no
> burden on users that don't care about it.
> 
> Given that WS Addressing does fill the need for this, those who are
> using WS Addressing would have no reason to care that it isn't in WSDL
> natively.  But since WSDL is such a fundamental building block of the
> Web services stack of standards, and this seems so fundamental to the
> notion of an abstract interface, I really think WSDL is where it
> belongs.
> 
> In summary, I will not ask the WG to reopen this, but I do think it is
> a factoring error in the design of WSDL.
> 
> David Booth
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jonathan Marsh [mailto:jmarsh@microsoft.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2005 5:34 PM
> > To: Booth, David (HP Software - Boston)
> > Cc: public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org
> > Subject: LC84a/b resolutions
> >
> >
> > The remaining issues exposed in [1] have been resolved.
> > Since the Operation Name Mapping Feature has been removed
> > from the Core spec (and is being generalized further in the
> > Primer, we felt that the remaining two issues LC84b [2] and
> > LC84c [3] could be closed with no further action.  If we
> > don't hear otherwise within two weeks, we will assume this
> > satisfies your concern.
> >
> > [1] http://www.w3.org/2004/Talks/1110-dbooth-opname/slide25-0.html
> > [2] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC84b
> > [3] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC84c
> >
> >
Received on Monday, 25 July 2005 14:12:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:20:31 GMT