- From: Jeffrey Schlimmer <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>
- Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 09:01:05 -0800
- 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 UTC