- From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
- Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 12:58:48 +0600
- To: "Savas Parastatidis" <Savas.Parastatidis@newcastle.ac.uk>, "Umit Yalcinalp" <umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com>
- Cc: <ksankar@cisco.com>, "Steve Graham" <sggraham@us.ibm.com>, "David Snelling" <d.snelling@fle.fujitsu.com>, "Jim Webber" <jim.webber@arjuna.com>, "Paul Watson" <Paul.Watson@newcastle.ac.uk>, <public-ws-desc-state@w3c.org>, "Steve Tuecke" <tuecke@mcs.anl.gov>
"Savas Parastatidis" <Savas.Parastatidis@newcastle.ac.uk> writes:
> should have used the IDL specification instead of C++. IDL is used to
> describe OO interfaces and not to define the behavioural semantics of a
> component model. It is my understanding that WSDL is used to define the
In IDL if one says:
interface foo {
attribute string x;
}
That means the generated language interface will have methods getx()
and setx(.). Thus, IDL does tell you precisely what methods are
available to access the state.
Sanjiva.
Received on Tuesday, 17 June 2003 03:00:24 UTC