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

Re: ISSUE : Extensible message exchange patterns

From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 16:49:38 +0200
Message-ID: <3CFF7682.7A45BD06@crf.canon.fr>
To: Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com>
CC: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, Jeffrey Schlimmer <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>, Glen Daniels <gdaniels@macromedia.com>, www-ws-desc@w3.org

Hi Chris,

This sounds good. Would the next step then be to handle the existing
WSDL MEPs (e.g. request-response, sollicit-response) the same way, i.e.
to outsource their definition and give them a URI?

Jean-Jacques.

Christopher Ferris wrote:

> I'm at a loss here. While some vocabulary that defined
> MEPs with angle-brackets might be a good thing(tm), it isn't
> at all clear to me that it is needed. SOAP1.2 defines
> MEPs and assigns URIs to these formal definitions. It also
> recommends in the binding framework that MEPs be named
> with a URI[1].
>
> I think that rather than treat this through extensibility
> in WSDL, that a binding identify the MEPs it supports
> with a URI (or qname I suppose, but we may need to do some
> coordination on that).
Received on Thursday, 6 June 2002 10:50:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:20 GMT