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

RE: Counting noses on "is SOAP and/or WSDL intrinsic to the definitio n of Web service"

From: Jeff Mischkinsky <jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2003 20:34:14 -0700
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20030604203139.03bf0350@rgmamerimap.oraclecorp.com>
To: "Ugo Corda" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>, "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>, <www-ws-arch@w3.org>

I think the point here is that for interoperability reasons we need to 
require at least a SOAP binding. Other bindings are possible and useful in 
addition.
   jeff

At 03:08 PM 6/4/2003, Ugo Corda wrote:

>By the same logic, would a WSDL binding to plain Java calls (sender and 
>receiver within the same Java process) correspond to a Web service? Or a 
>WSDL binding to RMI, or to DCOM, or to IIOP? Certainly possible WSDL 
>bindings cover a lot of territory ...
>
>Ugo
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David Orchard [mailto:dorchard@bea.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 2:47 PM
> > To: 'Jeff Mischkinsky'; 'Christopher B Ferris'; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: Counting noses on "is SOAP and/or WSDL intrinsic to the
> > definitio n of Web service"
> >
> >
> >
> > Another question to the +10ers.  If a WSDL file can describe
> > a service that
> > uses HTTP GET and POST and not SOAP, as in
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl#_http,
> > is that service a web service?  Under the +10 definition, it
> > isn't.  So the
> > "Web service" description language describes Web service +
> > something else.
> > What do you call that something else that WSD can describe
> > but isn't a Web
> > service?  Which also means that we actually have a Web
> > Service + some other
> > thing Description Language.
> >
> > Dave
> >
>
Received on Wednesday, 4 June 2003 23:36:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:20 GMT