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

Re: Issue: Should Operations permit alternate and multiple responses

From: Prasad Yendluri <pyendluri@webmethods.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 12:48:03 -0700
Message-ID: <3CCDA373.B270B84@webmethods.com>
To: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
CC: www-ws-desc@w3.org
>Prasad: Since you raised this, do you still want this inserted
>as an issue? If so I will and we can discuss it later if you wish.

Please do. Thanks.



Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:

> I agree that WSDL 1.1 already has slipped down the slope a bit.
> The rationale was that the cases of sending a message, and that
> of sending and receiving a message were pretty much fundamental
> and justified special syntax. The output-only and solicit-response
> were just the flips of those.
>
> I find it hard to accept that one message in and two out is such
> a fundamental pattern.
>
> I'm not sure what side you're supporting Dale: Do you want WSDL
> to have special syntax for supporting such patterns or to leave
> that out of scope? My preference is the latter.
>
> Prasad: Since you raised this, do you still want this inserted
> as an issue? If so I will and we can discuss it later if you wish.
>
> Sanjiva.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dale Moberg" <dmoberg@cyclonecommerce.com>
> To: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>; <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
> Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 10:52 PM
> Subject: RE: Issue: Should Operations permit alternate and multiple
> responses
>
> >
> > Sanjiva writes:
> >
> > "I think this is a slippery slope .. clearly there are many message
> > exchange patterns in life. WSDL 1.1 picks a few "standard" ones
> > for direct syntactic support and leaves others upto richer
> > languages like orchestration languages.
> >
> > "Adding support for multiple and optional outputs can be done with
> > allowing messages to be defined in terms of messages too. Again,
> > that's another slippery slope ... where does WSDL end and orchestration
> > start?"
> >
> > At the face-to-face meeting, several people emphasized their
> > desire to have a clean demarcation between WSDL interface
> > definitions and bindings and also a clear line between the
> > the WSDL interface definitions and choreography notations.
> >
> > I think the blurring of the boundaries (or the beginning of the
> > slope) for the choreography/interface topic begins with the current
> > terminology of operations--one-way-, request-response-,solicit-response,
> > and notification-operation. These are just groups of various
> > combinations of wsdl:input, wsdl:output, and wsdl:fault, and
> > the particular semantic flavor of the current group names,
> > suggest that interface definitions are being defined
> > reflecting semantic peculiarities from the viewpoint
> > of the invoking environment (that is, semantic wisps of
> > some choreography). But no one knows how large the list
> > of semantic primitives for these choreography types really
> > is or even what among them will be needed eventually.
> >
> > If terms like "InOut," "In" "Out" (and "OutIn" I guess) had
> > been used instead, no one would be tempted to say that we were
> > trafficing in cryptic choreography semantics. In addition,
> > we could be noncommittal about just which semantic choreography
> > primitives are needed, how they work, what they mean, and
> > how many have to be documented by the release of 1.2. As
> > interface types, "InOut" and so on, seem pretty familiar
> > from IDL specifications already, and people would expect
> > what they actually get.

--
---------------------------------------------------------------
Principal Architect, ATG; webMethods Inc.,
432 Lakeside Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94088-3793, USA
Tel: (408) 962-5226 mailto: pyendluri@webmethods.com
---------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Monday, 29 April 2002 15:45:11 GMT

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