- From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
- Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 10:03:55 +0600
- To: "Savas Parastatidis" <Savas.Parastatidis@newcastle.ac.uk>, <public-ws-desc-state@w3.org>, "Jeff Mischkinsky" <jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com>
- Cc: "Steve Graham" <sggraham@us.ibm.com>
"Savas Parastatidis" <Savas.Parastatidis@newcastle.ac.uk> writes: > > That was exactly what I was trying to get across. WSDL is the IDL for > Web Services. With WSDL you can write interfaces as you can with IDL. > WSDL is not the place to specify specific operations. > > .savas. Sorry, I don't understand what you're saying. In IDL, if you say "attribute string foo" its simply another way of saying "string getFoo ()" and "void setFoo (string)". Without such an approach, there's no way to implement a stub so that it knows what to do when someone wants to read the attribute. WSDL as the IDL for Web services should presumably support the same model for attributes: an attribute x in WSDL means that the service offers getx() and maybe setx() (if the attr is readonly). Are you now agreeing this is the right way to go? IIRC you disagreed earlier; my apologies if I misunderstood you. Sanjiva.
Received on Monday, 30 June 2003 00:03:56 UTC