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

RE: WSDL 2: HTTP input, output, fault serialization in the wrong place

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 13:47:41 -0700
Message-ID: <37D0366A39A9044286B2783EB4C3C4E849E19D@RED-MSG-10.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek.kopecky@deri.org>
Cc: <public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org>

Thanks for your comment.  The WS Description Working Group tracked this
as a Last Call comment LC332 [1].  The Working Group was unable to agree
to adopt your proposal at this stage of our development.  Though some
members applaud your suggestion as a superior design, the majority felt
that the status quo was sufficient.

If we don't hear otherwise within two weeks, we will assume this
satisfies your concern.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/lc-issues/issues.html#LC332


> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-desc-comments-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-desc-
> comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jacek Kopecky
> Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 12:07 PM
> To: public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org
> Subject: WSDL 2: HTTP input, output, fault serialization in the wrong
> place
> 
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> a last call comment on the 2005 last call draft of the adjuncts:
> 
> Section 6.6.2 in adjuncts defines {http input serialization}, {http
> output serialization} and {http fault serialization} to describe the
> content type of the messages. It does so on the binding operation
> component level. I believe the binding message reference and binding
> fault reference components would be a better place for these
> properties;
> and the current places could be dropped or they could carry defaults.
> 
> So instead of
> 
> <binding ...>
>   <operation ... whttp:outputSerialization="image/jpeg" />
> </binding>
> 
> we'd have
> 
> <binding ...>
>   <operation ... >
>     <output whttp:serialization="image/jpeg" />
>   </operation>
> </binding>
> 
> This would allow us to define different serializations for different
> output messages (or different input messages or different faults).
> Granted, none of our MEPs have multiple input messages or multiple
> output messages, but there can always be multiple faults.
> 
> It doesn't seem to me that the current limitation to a single
> serialization format for all inputs, other for all outputs and yet
> another for all faults, is in any way useful. In fact, to me it seems
> fairly strange.
> 
> Hope it makes sense,
> 
> Jacek Kopecky
> 
Received on Wednesday, 5 October 2005 20:48:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:20:32 GMT