W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > August 2003

RE: RPC in WSA?

From: Martin Chapman <martin.chapman@oracle.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2003 10:41:07 -0700
To: "'Sanjiva Weerawarana'" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Message-ID: <005501c35dd4$4109ff50$6501a8c0@us.oracle.com>

so what the hell does the "S" mean in ws*. S is a verb, a request to do
something, so just talking about exchanging messages does not distiguish the
ws paradigm from any other mesaging protocol.

Martin.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Sanjiva Weerawarana
> Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 8:11 PM
> To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: Re: RPC in WSA?
> 
> 
> 
> "Paul Denning" <pauld@mitre.org> writes:
> >
> > Martin has an action item from the 2003-08-7 telecon, but I 
> thought I
> would
> > prime the pump with some thoughts I had during the telecon.
> >
> > Given that WSDWG seems to be taking the notion of RPC (or 
> the ability 
> > to describe RPC) out of WSDL, we need to figure out a few things.
> 
> I disagree totally.
> 
> WSDL's abstract part never had the notion of RPC. What it had 
> always was the notion of a one way message or a 
> request-response pattern of messages. The SOAP *binding* is 
> the only thing that used the word "rpc" and that was used to 
> mean "apply the rules of SOAP RPC as indicated in section 7 
> of SOAP 1.1 to generate a wrapper element for the <part>s of 
> the message."
> 
> I don't believe the direction of the WS-Desc WG has changed 
> these fundamental concepts. What we have indeed decided is 
> not to have the binding rule for auto generating a wrapper, 
> but the message exchange patterns are still there and still 
> the same (and much more powerful for extensibility).
> 
> > 1.  What should WSAWG say about RPC?
> > 2.  Where in the WSA stack diagram would RPC fit?
> > 3.  If I wanted to describe an RPC web service, how do I 
> describe it? 
> > 4.  Is RPC a higher layer thing that Choreography should 
> describe? 5.  
> > Is RPC a lower layer thing that currenty has no formal description 
> > language? 6.  Is RPC a "feature" [1]?
> > 7.  Should RPC be included in the Message Oriented Model [2]?
> > 8.  Should description of RPC be a WSDL extension?
> 
> IMO WS-A should talk about message exchange patterns as 
> described in WSDL and not about RPC directly. RPC's can 
> indeed be modeled by WSDL.next just fine as a 
> request-response (or input-output, whatever the thing is 
> called today) MEP and thus that's all WS-A needs to consider.
> 
> YMMV. ;-)
> 
> Sanjiva.
> 
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 8 August 2003 13:40:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:22 GMT