W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > February 2003

RE: MEP proposal

From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
Date: 21 Feb 2003 18:39:46 +0100
To: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
Cc: Jeffrey Schlimmer <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>, "Amelia A. Lewis" <alewis@tibco.com>, WS Description WG <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1045849186.6495.145.camel@krava.in.idoox.com>

Gudge, thanks for the response, see below for further comments in some
subthreads, please.


On Fri, 2003-02-21 at 17:02, Martin Gudgin wrote:
> > Why does a fault reference refer to possibly multiple 
> > messages? Why is this not similar to normal message 
> > references? What does it mean if a fault reference 'C' refers 
> > to messages 'M1' and 'M2'?
> 
> It means that either message M1 or message M2 can appear at point 'C' in
> the MEP. We ( Amy, Jeff and I ) wrestled for a while with how to deal
> with faults and this is one approach, which we think captured the intent
> of the direction decided at the FTF. We also thought a little about
> generalizing message references to allow multiple messages, but I don't
> think it makes the 80/20 cut.

Either I'm going blind, or this explanation is not written in the
proposal. I think it ought to be there.

> Naming the MEPs something other than MEP1-7? I don't really mind. I
> would suggest we leave them as is because then they don't accumulate any
> baggage due to people reading particular properties into a particular
> name.
> 
> Naming the message references something other than 'A', 'B', 'C'? I
> guess we could, again I don't really see the benefit, they're just there
> to allow us to sequence things.

Both mostly for simplicity and self-describability reasons. How often do
we see, for example, XML files with the elements as below? 8-) 
<el1>
  <el2/>
  <el3/>
</el1>

> > For example, SOAP 
> > Request/Response maps to MEP2, SOAP Response maps either to 
> > MEP4 or MEP2, and a potential SOAP Req/Resp MEP involving one 
> > intermediary would map to two WSDL MEPs - MEP2 for the 
> > service and MEP8 (below) for the intermediary. And that's not 
> > considering describing the client in a WSDL. 8-)
> 
> We agreed that WSDL describes things from the POV of the service.

Either both parties can be considered a service in a client/server
relationship in at least some cases, or output-first MEPs don't make
sense. Or am I wrong?

Best regads,

                   Jacek Kopecky

                   Senior Architect, Systinet Corporation
                   http://www.systinet.com/
Received on Friday, 21 February 2003 12:39:57 GMT

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