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]
> 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
> > not affect the messages that are exchanged. It is a means to convey
> > intended programming model and should be designed to be sufficient
> > that purpose.
> I disagree with this statement.
> RPC style has two distinct requirements:
> -- Schema requirements that describe what it means to be a conformant
> with respect to this style The schema requirements define the
structure of
> the messages, (i.e) whether it should only contain local elements,
> -- Programming hints.
> This is why I made the proposal [1] to divide the rules into two
> You are putting these two requirements as if both talk about
> 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,
> hope you don't disagree quoting you here again ;-)). "Interoperability
> 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
> not follow the rules in the first section, a client who makes use of
> style may not be able to process the schema because it is expecting
> 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
> 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
> conformant if it uses the style URI but did not follow the schema
> Arthur's checker should be able to barf on such a WSDL.  This has
> to do about how one further processes the message, but is necessary
> 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
> of describing how each respective language such as Java, C++, C# must
> handling RPC style. There are specs for that and conformance suites
> are tailored. I am sure some members of this community will not be
> 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
> 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 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:54:45 UTC