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

RE: Binding

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 11:25:05 -0800
To: "'Ugo Corda'" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>, "'Champion, Mike'" <Mike.Champion@softwareag-usa.com>, <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Message-ID: <014c01c2b5be$4e3a1c00$9d0ba8c0@beasys.com>
Yeah, BEA as well.  And we wanted it gone from soap 1.2.  But consensus
almost always seems to work to keep things in that others would like.
People are more motivated to object about removing features than they are to
object to a feature not being removed.  Look at our definition of Web
services.  We still can't "get rid of" non-soap and/or non-wsdl.  Same
problemo.

Dave


> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Ugo Corda
> Sent: Sunday, January 05, 2003 8:14 PM
> To: Champion, Mike; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Binding
> 
> 
> 
> > You seem to be beating on the RPC strawman, even after the 
> > WS-I has declared him legally dead :-) 
> 
> This is not exactly correct. What the WS-I Basic Profile has 
> ruled out is RPC with SOAP Encoding (Chapt. 5 of SOAP 1.1). 
> Literal RPC is still part of the Basic Profile.
> 
> Recently there were discussions to drop the RPC style 
> entirely from the Basic Profile (which I would have been in 
> favor of), but it was rejected since many people considered 
> that too big a change this late in the game.
> 
> Ugo
> 
> 
> 


Received on Monday, 6 January 2003 15:01:31 GMT

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