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

Re: On WSDL "operation"

From: Amelia A. Lewis <alewis@tibco.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 10:46:40 -0400
To: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Message-id: <20030916104640.0b5b6515.alewis@tibco.com>

On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 07:39:16 -0600
"Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com> wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jim Webber [mailto:jim.webber@arjuna.com] 
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 4:52 AM
> > To: 'Mark Baker'; 'Umit Yalcinalp'
> > Cc: 'WS Description List'
> > Subject: RE: On WSDL "operation"
> > 
> 
> > It could be as simple as re-naming "operation" to something 
> > like "messageExchange."
> 
> Yeah, but a WSDL "operation" presumably DOES something.  It's not just
> a message for the sake of sending bits around.  How about
> "serviceInvocation" or "serviceRequest" or something along those
> lines? If a WSDL message does anything, it does request that a service
> be performed by the provider on behalf of the requester [the current
> WSA terminology, IIRC].  

Then current WSA terminology is wrong.  This proposed language excludes
pub/sub services and generally any output-first model.  That appears to
be the direction that WSA is moving; I'm perfectly happy to dig in my
heels and watch them disappear into the sunset.

messageExchange is appropriately generic; there is very little other
implied semantic.  messageExchangeInvolvingAService, perhaps.

Amy!
-- 
Amelia A. Lewis
Architect, TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc.
alewis@tibco.com
Received on Tuesday, 16 September 2003 12:16:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:26 GMT