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

Re: Outboud ops state of debate

From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 02:01:39 -0500
Message-ID: <01e901c2a1ac$52e918d0$7f00a8c0@lankabook2>
To: "Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

I'd like to get a bit of time to try to convince the outbounders
of their incompleteness. I am happy to support efforts to add
functionality to cover the various usages of outbound ops
(events, callbacks etc.) in a clean, unambiguous, interoperable
manner. Not doing that amounts to us not doing our job right IMHO.

In any case, I don't think the WSDL WG should be publishing
a TCP binding.

Sanjiva.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 12:42 PM
Subject: Outboud ops state of debate


> 
> I promised to send a statement of the proposal that emerged on output
> ops at the last telcon.
> 
> The proposal is:
> 1) Keep output operations in the spec.
> 2) Publish the TCP binding as a note motivating the need to retain
> output operations.
> 3) Add a non-normative reference to this note from the spec.
> 4) State that the HTTP binding simply does not support output
> operations. Arthur has an action to investigate what it would mean to
> support output ops in the HTTP binding, which may lead to a proposal or
> issues, or both.
> 
Received on Thursday, 12 December 2002 02:04:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:22 GMT