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

RE: PROPOSAL: Drop interface/operation/(input|output)/@headers

From: Jeffrey Schlimmer <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 09:01:05 -0800
Message-ID: <DDE1793D7266AD488BB4F5E8D38EACB8039D85D0@WIN-MSG-10.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
To: "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>, "Glen Daniels" <gdaniels@sonicsoftware.com>, <paul.downey@bt.com>, <alewis@tibco.com>
Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

> From: David Orchard
> 
> Indeed.  But how does WSDL express the difference between the
> "application"
> components and the "infrastructure" components?  I haven't seen any
syntax
> yet that shows this differentiation.  To a certain extent, the problem
is
> that the "infrastructure" components are not targetted at the end
> application, rather something else like the security handler of the
> application.  

Is there a compelling need to distinguish message processing roles
orthogonally to, or more generally than, SOAP actor/role?

> As we (the industry and stds bodies) haven't really talked
> about intermediaries in this context, there is no guidance on how to
> structure wsdl nor whether to use soap:role to disambiguate.  

Agreed. Is @role 1:1 with intermediary? 

> Nor is there
> any guidance whatsoever on how to use WSDL in the face of
intermediaries,
> either in the message path or even within the ultimate receiver.

Agreed. Would it be sufficient to say transparent intermediaries do not
need WSDL, that opaque intermediaries would have their own WSDL, and
that a single WSDL document expressed the aggregate requirements of a
SOAP node implementing one or more distributed roles?

> It seems like wsdl 2.0 ought to do something about this.
Received on Friday, 31 October 2003 12:03:18 GMT

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