W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > April 2002

Re: issue: remove solicit-response and output-only operations?

From: Prasad Yendluri <pyendluri@webmethods.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 18:22:47 -0700
Message-ID: <3CBB7CE7.6343E73B@webmethods.com>
To: "Malu, Pallavi G" <pallavi.g.malu@intel.com>, "'Sanjiva Weerawarana'" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
CC: www-ws-desc@w3c.org
We discussed this briefly during F2F last week also but to expand a little more
on this, I see a need for both types of mechanisms. That is,

1) A solid event-notification mechanism (that is service initiated) that
Sanjiva proposes as the replacement. This would however call for the
specification of the complete details including the event subscription
mechanism etc. as we had discussed in the f2f. This is to facilitate a server
to generate events (subsequent to a request).

2) A way to describe things from a request initiator perspective. Revised and
completed versions of Solict-Response and Notification that "fix" the abstract
definitions and provide full details of the concrete definitions.

I personally would be willing to go with the removal of these patterns if there
is a clear way to capture both sides of an exchange (e.g. in a business
process) say by an upper layer mechanism (analogous to WSFL or XLANG). However
both seem to (XLANG I know for sure) rely on Solicit-Response / Notification
type patterns to accomplish this. It is not clear to me how else this could be
accomplished...

Regards, Prasad


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: issue: remove solicit-response and output-only operations?
Resent-Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 20:19:41 -0400 (EDT)
Resent-From: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 17:18:28 -0700
From: "Malu, Pallavi G" <pallavi.g.malu@intel.com>
To: "'Sanjiva Weerawarana'" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, www-ws-desc@w3c.org
CC: "'pyendluri@webmethods.com'" <pyendluri@webMethods.com>

Sanjiva,

For representing Rosettanet PIPs we need solicit-response operations.
e.g. PIP3A4 - is a PurchaseOrderRequest ans PurchaseOrderConfirmation
scenario between the buyer and the seller.

buyer:
            <operation name="submitPO">
   <output message="PORequest"/>
   <input message="POResponse"/>
  </operation>

and corresponding seller:
  <operation name="processPO">
   <input message="PORequest"/>
   <output message="POResponse"/>
  </operation>

So unless we have some first-class description of an event mechanism in
place, I suggest we leave the "solicit-response" and "output-only" as is in
WSDL1.2.


-Pallavi


-----Original Message-----
From: Sanjiva Weerawarana [mailto:sanjiva@watson.ibm.com]
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2002 9:14 PM
To: www-ws-desc@w3c.org
Subject: issue: remove solicit-response and output-only operations?


The WG would like to solicit your comments on whether we should
eliminate WSDL 1.1's "solicit-response" and "output-only"
operations as we produce WSDL 1.2.

Here are the two issues from the latest part1 document. Note that
I have posted these together as the decisions obviously need to
be coupled.

  <issue id="issue-remove-solicit-response-operations" status="open">
    <head>Should we remove solicit-response operations?</head>
    Solicit-response operations are not fully defined in WSDL
    1.1. There are multiple interpretations of these in the community:
    event, callback etc.. Also, there is little evidence that anyone
    is actually using them.  We could consider replacing this with
    a first-class description of an event mechanism.
    <source>Sanjiva Weerawarana</source>
  </issue>

  <issue id="issue-remove-notification-operations" status="open">
    <head>Should we remove notification operations?</head>
    Notification operations are also not fully defined in WSDL
    1.1. There are multiple interpretations of these in the community:
    event, callback etc.. Also, there is little evidence that anyone
    is actually using them. We could consider replacing this with
    a first-class description of an event mechanism.
    <source>Sanjiva Weerawarana</source>
  </issue>

Thanks,

Sanjiva.
Received on Monday, 15 April 2002 21:18:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:19 GMT