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

issues 35 & 36

From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 12:46:54 +0600
Message-ID: <022401c2184b$b10c6ab0$82a6a409@lankabook2>
To: "WS-Desc WG \(Public\)" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

I would like to close the following issues as they are redundant:

  <issue>
    <issue-num>36</issue-num>
    <title>Should we remove notification operations?</title>
    <locus>Spec</locus>
    <requirement>n/a</requirement>
    <priority>Design</priority>
    <topic></topic>
    <status>Active</status>
    <originator><a href="mailto:sanjiva@watson.ibm.com">Sanjiva
Weerawarana</a></originator>
    <responsible>Unassigned</responsible>
    <description>
    [<a
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2002Apr/0029.html">ema
il</a>]
    [See also issue 26]
    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.
    </description>
    <proposal>
    </proposal>
    <resolution>
    </resolution>
  </issue>

  <issue>
    <issue-num>35</issue-num>
    <title>Should we remove solicit-response operations?</title>
    <locus>Spec</locus>
    <requirement>n/a</requirement>
    <priority>Design</priority>
    <topic></topic>
    <status>Active</status>
    <originator><a href="mailto:sanjiva@watson.ibm.com">Sanjiva
Weerawarana</a></originator>
    <responsible>Unassigned</responsible>
    <description>
    [<a
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2002Apr/0029.html">ema
il</a>]
    [See also issue 26]
    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.
    </description>
    <proposal>
    </proposal>
    <resolution>
    </resolution>
  </issue>

The corresponding issues in the part1 doc are:

  <issue id="issue-remove-solicit-response-operations">
    <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">
    <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>

Any objections?

Sanjiva.
Received on Thursday, 20 June 2002 07:15:31 GMT

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