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

RE: Summary: 22-24 Sept 2003 WS Desc FTF

From: Jeffrey Schlimmer <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 20:21:00 -0700
Message-ID: <DDE1793D7266AD488BB4F5E8D38EACB8031FA343@WIN-MSG-10.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

> Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
> > Amelia A. Lewis wrote:
> >
> > I wasn't asked to supply justification for the outbound-first
> > operations, which TIBCO *has* advocated, strongly.  

Microsoft also strongly advocates output-only and output-input.

> > The disappearance of
> > the old multicast solicit response is a result of changes in the
> > definitions, such that the outbound-first operations are now,
> > theoretically (apart from the trifling problem that fault replaces
> > message is probably inappropriate), modeled by existing
outbound-first
> > patterns.
>
> I'm more confused. We still have the old solicit-response and
> output-only patterns, at least as of the Sept. F2F! What's the
> diff between what we have now and what was in WSDL 1.1?

We now have abstract patterns that a particular binding will fully
specify. When we gave examples in the past of how such patterns _might_
be used, you and others were concerned that variation in these usages
was equivalent to being underspecified. The patterns are now precisely
specified at a level of abstraction, leaving it to the binding to define
a specific usage.

The hypothetical TCP binding [1] defined a single, specific usage.

If the WG takes on defining how the HTTP binding will use these
patterns, which I hope it will, it too will define a specific usage.

--Jeff

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Nov/0044.html 
Received on Wednesday, 1 October 2003 23:21:24 GMT

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