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

RE: MEP proposal

From: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 10:04:17 -0800
Message-ID: <92456F6B84D1324C943905BEEAE0278E02D30D13@RED-MSG-10.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek@systinet.com>
Cc: "Jeffrey Schlimmer" <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>, "Amelia A. Lewis" <alewis@tibco.com>, "WS Description WG" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jacek Kopecky [mailto:jacek@systinet.com] 
> Sent: 21 February 2003 17:40
> To: Martin Gudgin
> Cc: Jeffrey Schlimmer; Amelia A. Lewis; WS Description WG
> Subject: RE: MEP proposal
> 
> 
> 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.

OK. I'll fix up the language in 2.5.1 and/or 2.7

> 
> > 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>

I'm not sure these are the same kind of thing as element/attribute names
in XML. These names really are just used for sequencing/disjunction.
Perhaps they should be called 1, 2 and 3?

> 
> > > 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?

I do not understand your conclusion. I think output-first MEPs make
sense from the POV of the service. 

Gudge
Received on Friday, 21 February 2003 13:04:51 GMT

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