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

RE: On WSDL "operation"

From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@systinet.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 16:10:53 +0200
To: Jim Webber <jim.webber@arjuna.com>
Cc: 'WS Description List' <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1063807852.2097.47.camel@localhost>

Jim, wouldn't it be better if we educated our audience about what Web
Services are and what they do and how they are not distributed objects?
Educated users (or those already in the know) would be able to use the
full potential of Web Services and those who would still think in terms
of distributed objects would be allowed to continue their (mis)use.

If we depart from normal and accessible terminology, education will be a
must, but this time starting with confused users, not users who
comfortably think they know what the thing is about.

I still prefer the term operation. 8-)

                   Jacek Kopecky

                   Senior Architect
                   Systinet Corporation
                   http://www.systinet.com/


On Wed, 2003-09-17 at 15:48, Jim Webber wrote:
> Jacek:
> 
> I am still keen on grouping message exchanges into something bigger (what
> WSDL 1.1 calls an "operation"), but I am increasingly of the opinion that
> the word "operation" isn't right.
> 
> The problem with the word "operation" is that developers think of it as a
> synonym for "method" or "function" when it isn't - it's a description of
> exchanged messages.
> 
> As for MEPs, I'm not against defining them. I think you might be able to get
> away with request-only and build patterns from that, but there may be value
> in adding other common patterns too (e.g. request-response).
> 
> Jim
> 
Received on Wednesday, 17 September 2003 10:10:57 GMT

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