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

Re: proposed issue: Support for non-named-operation oriented portTypes

From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 02:52:35 +0600
Message-ID: <052801c20109$7141db30$0aaa7cca@lankabook2>
To: "Scott Hinkelman" <srh@us.ibm.com>
Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Hi Scott,

I think you're reading too much into the operation "name." In
WSDL 1.1, while you're required to provide a name at the time
of defining the portType, there is NO requirement that that
translate into something on the wire. In particular, I believe
for doc/lit style bindings the operation name simply does not
apply.

The name exists primarily to allow bindings to refer to specific
operations so that binding information may be given. Without a
name, there's no way to refer to a particular operation.

Bye,

Sanjiva.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Hinkelman" <srh@us.ibm.com>
To: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>; <www-ws-desc-request@w3.org>
Sent: Friday, May 17, 2002 8:11 PM
Subject: proposed issue: Support for non-named-operation oriented portTypes


> Hello,
> I would like to propose an issue on the requirement for all portTypes to
be
> named-operation oriented.
>
> There are significant efforts in several industry/semi-vertical standards
> bodies that define business payload content through structures where all
> message intentionality is defined directly as part of the payload. Taking
> the view that the WSDL name attribute on operation is intended to reflect
> the intentionality of the message (which I believe is the popular view)
> fundamentally presents core model difference and appears can only result
in
> unnatural representations at best using WSDL. In my mind, named operations
> on a Service is a key aspect to Service Orientation, but there is
> significant momentum in industry groups operating outside this orientation
> aspect.
>
> I believe this to be a significant hurdle of WSDL adoption for groups
> operating under this type of design, where all message intentionality is
an
> intricate part of the payload structure.
>
> I'm not sure of the details for issue submission and thank you for this
> consideration.
>
> Scott
> ______________
> Scott Hinkelman, Senior Software Engineer
> XML Industry Enablement
> IBM e-business Standards Strategy
> 512-823-8097 (TL 793-8097) (Cell: 512-415-8490)
> srh@us.ibm.com, Fax: 512-838-1074
Received on Tuesday, 21 May 2002 16:52:59 GMT

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