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

Re: RE: RPC Style Issues (3)

From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2003 13:25:34 +0600
Message-ID: <008b01c3a129$1fb67c50$10266a20@lankabook2>
To: "Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>, <UMIT.YALCINALP@ORACLE.COM>, "Jeffrey Schlimmer" <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>, <jacek.kopecky@systinet.com>
Cc: <tomj@macromedia.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

+1 to all your points.

Sanjiva.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
To: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>;
<UMIT.YALCINALP@ORACLE.COM>; "Jeffrey Schlimmer"
<jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>; <jacek.kopecky@systinet.com>
Cc: <tomj@macromedia.com>; <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2003 2:07 AM
Subject: RE: RE: RPC Style Issues (3)


> I think it's even weaker than that.  If a binding is wrong, you probably
> can't communicate effectively with the Web service.  That sounds like a
> fatal error to most WSDL processors.
>
> But if the messages don't match the style the author has asserted, this
> does not imply that you can't use the Web service just fine.  Your tool
> might warn you that "the author of this WSDL lied when he asserted the
> style blah, so the stubs I'm generating may be in different forms than
> the author intended."  That doesn't sound fatal to me.
>
> It should not be a conformance violation to build a tool that only
> accepts WSDLs marked and verified to be RPC style, though marketing such
> a tool to customers who want to consume arbitrary WSDL will be
> challenging.  It should not be a conformance violation to build a tool
> that ignores RPC style and generates its stubs through some other
> heuristic, though marketing such a tool to customers who want the
> authors intensions followed in their function signatures will be
> challenging.  It should not be a conformance violation to build a tool
> that recognizes RPC style, but doesn't "honor" all the programming hints
> (e.g. munges operation names to match a particular coding convention),
> though marketing such a tool to customers would entail convincing them
> that the heuristics are better than following the hints to the letter.
> None of these approaches impede interop at the message level.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]
> On
> > Behalf Of Sanjiva Weerawarana
> > Sent: Friday, October 31, 2003 11:45 AM
> > To: UMIT.YALCINALP@ORACLE.COM; Jeffrey Schlimmer;
> > jacek.kopecky@systinet.com
> > Cc: tomj@macromedia.com; www-ws-desc@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: RE: RPC Style Issues (3)
> >
> >
> > Yes, we're *only* talking about message conformance. However,
> > the way do that is by *first* defining a schema and *then* saying
> > "oh BTW, I followed certain rules when I defined that schema, if
> > you care to know." So, interop is guaranteed purely by whether you
> > conform to the schema or not, period.
> >
> > *If* you do care to notice the fact that the author followed the RPC
> > rules in defining the schema, *then* you have an obligation to
> > verify that the guy didn't screw it up. This does lead to a kind of
> > interop problem, but the problem is that the WSDL is simply wrong
> > (for people who wish to pay attention to the style=RPC part), and
> > thereby non-interoperable ;-).
> >
> > I agree with Jeff and others that this is analogous to the model we
> > have for bindings. *If* you care to use the HTTP binding in a WSDL
> > then you may complain that the binding has some flaws. However,
> > if you only care to use the SOAP binding, then you will not examine
> > the HTTP binding nor complain about its flaws. Similarly, if you do
> > not care to pay attention to the fact that the author claims certain
> > rules were followed in defining schemas, then the you are not
> obligated
> > to verify that the author is not a two-faced liar.
> >
> > Sanjiva.
> >
Received on Sunday, 2 November 2003 05:06:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:27 GMT