W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > July 2002

RE: [RTF] Behavior definition of Services - public discussion

From: rrw <rrw@semiramis.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 17:19:34 +0100
Message-ID: <15659.3350.684653.48329@haydn.cluster.local>
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org

On Tuesday 9 July 2002, Damodaran, Suresh
<Suresh_Damodaran@stercomm.com> wrote:

>
>
>>From the discussions so far in this thread, is there a consensus
>that "though defining semantic equivalence of functional behavior is an
>interesting idea,
>it is very ill defined to be considered a requirement of Web Service
>Architecture"

 I think that's a good model to work on, but I would add the
 requirement that the WSA shouldn't preclude the use of such
 technologies - specifically, a lot of people (gSOAP and MS, for
 example) appear to be using Web Services as `the new CORBA': using
 IDL compilers to auto-generate source code based on WSDL templates.

 To my mind, this is a retrograde step (web services may not be
 semantic, but they ought to be dynamic - it's very hard to come up
 with tools that do dynamic code generation sensibly), and so I think
 we ought to make a stand against entrenching these programming styles
 - even if only symbolically, though I admit that this is likely to
 be controversial (maybe too controversial for a standard ?).

 To some extent, the whole semantics issue is a red herring: If we end
 up with a sensible specification, automated reasoning on it ought to
 be fairly easy with no need for further standardisation (you wouldn't
 want to standardise the algorithms anyway).
 


Richard.
Received on Tuesday, 9 July 2002 12:19:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:01 GMT