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

Re: RE: RPC Style Issues (3)

From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2003 01:45:16 +0600
Message-ID: <198a01c39fe7$a5167500$36356a20@lankabook2>
To: <UMIT.YALCINALP@ORACLE.COM>, <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>, <jacek.kopecky@systinet.com>
Cc: <tomj@macromedia.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

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 Friday, 31 October 2003 14:49:22 GMT

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