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

RE: RE: RPC Style Issues (3)

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 11:52:12 -0800
Message-ID: <DF1BAFBC28DF694A823C9A8400E71EA201A02C9F@RED-MSG-30.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <UMIT.YALCINALP@ORACLE.COM>, "Jeffrey Schlimmer" <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>, <jacek.kopecky@systinet.com>
Cc: <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, <tomj@macromedia.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

Umit, it sounds like you are disagreeing with the basic premise of Web
services interoperability (interop is based on well-defined messages
going back and forth, not on the compatibility of the programming models
on each end.)  It's hard for us to imagine that you really mean that.
Perhaps you could really spell out what change you are asking for.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]
On
> Behalf Of UMIT.YALCINALP@ORACLE.COM
> Sent: Friday, October 31, 2003 11:19 AM
> To: Jeffrey Schlimmer; jacek.kopecky@systinet.com
> Cc: sanjiva@watson.ibm.com; tomj@macromedia.com; www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: Re: RE: RPC Style Issues (3)
> 
> > Don't forget that the RPC style is not needed for interop since it
does
> > not affect the messages that are exchanged. It is a means to convey
> > intended programming model and should be designed to be sufficient
for
> > that purpose.
> 
> I disagree with this statement.
> 
> RPC style has two distinct requirements:
> 
> -- Schema requirements that describe what it means to be a conformant
WSDL
> with respect to this style The schema requirements define the
structure of
> the messages, (i.e) whether it should only contain local elements,
etc.
> 
> -- Programming hints.
> 
> This is why I made the proposal [1] to divide the rules into two
sections.
> 
> You are putting these two requirements as if both talk about
programming
> hints, they don't. The first set of rules define what the schema
> conformance rules are.
> 
> I would agree with Sanjiva (this is verbatim from my IRC log Sanjiva,
i
> hope you don't disagree quoting you here again ;-)). "Interoperability
is
> quaranteed with the schemas, not the programming model."
> 
> This is why I propose the rules are defined as such, in two separate
> sections.
> 
> For example, if I were to publish a WSDL with the RPC style URI, but
do
> not follow the rules in the first section, a client who makes use of
this
> style may not be able to process the schema because it is expecting
the
> messages to be formatted in a certain way and they are not. That is
why it
> affects interoperability. I would not know what to do if the
complexType
> contained attributes, or a choice, etc.
> 
> IMHO, David explained it quite well during the telcon. We should be
> talking about what conformance means. From our perspective, a WSDL is
not
> conformant if it uses the style URI but did not follow the schema
rules.
> Arthur's checker should be able to barf on such a WSDL.  This has
nothing
> to do about how one further processes the message, but is necessary
for
> those who would make use of this style.
> 
> Further, if you want to follow the hint or use DOM to represent your
> message, conformance can not talk about it unless we get into the
business
> of describing how each respective language such as Java, C++, C# must
be
> handling RPC style. There are specs for that and conformance suites
that
> are tailored. I am sure some members of this community will not be
very
> receptive if we were to get into that business.
> 
> What we are proposing here is the message conformance. Lets not mix it
> with the intended programming model that is further described in the
> second set of rules.
> 
> This is the same analogy to using a MEP which is defined to use a
message-
> triggers-fault rule but mistakenly uses faults incorrectly wrt
> directionality. I say this is a non conformant WSDL, regardless of you
> know how to implement this MEP or not.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> --umit
> 
> 
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Oct/0057.html
Received on Friday, 31 October 2003 14:51:53 GMT

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