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

RE: request for explanatory wording for features

From: Jeffrey Schlimmer <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2003 22:12:09 -0700
Message-ID: <DDE1793D7266AD488BB4F5E8D38EACB802F268D8@WIN-MSG-10.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
To: "Glen Daniels" <gdaniels@macromedia.com>, "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

Glen, how would a WSDL processor know whether a feature was accepted or
required?

--Jeff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]
On
> Behalf Of Glen Daniels
> Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2003 8:08 AM
> To: Sanjiva Weerawarana; www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: RE: request for explanatory wording for features
> 
> 
> 
> (writing this on a plane - not sure if I'll be able to get it
>  sent before Sunday night...)
> 
> Hi all:
> 
> > Feature proponents: Can someone please give some explanatory
> > sentences that explains what a feature is? The current wording
> > is, um, recursive:
> >
> >     "A Feature component describes a particular feature that
> >      a Web service accepts or requires in particular interactions."
> >
> > While its cool to have a recursive definition, it doesn't help
> > anyone understand what a feature is supposed to be. Maybe there's
> > wording in the SOAP spec we can borrow (or refer to). Can someone
> > take this on please? Glen?
> 
> Sure.  How about this (paraphrased from the SOAP spec):
> 
> 	A feature component describes an abstract piece of
> 	functionality typically associated with the exchange of
> 	messages between communicating parties.  Although WSDL
> 	poses no constraints on the potential scope of such
> 	features, examples might include "reliability",
> 	"security", "correlation", and "routing".  The presence
> 	of a feature component in a WSDL description indicates
> 	that the feature is either accepted or required in
> 	particular interactions.
> 
> This is a band-aid patch that clears up the particular wording you
> noted had problems.  I do plan to take a swing at creating some
further
> explanatory text about features/properties in general, as discussed
> a couple of F2F's ago.
> 
> --Glen
> 
Received on Monday, 22 September 2003 01:12:13 GMT

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