RE: On WSDL "operation"

OK, what exactly are we trying to model/describe in WSDL?

I thought that WSDL is meant to describe the interface of a single
service; while the product of WS-Choreography WG would describe the
interactions of multiple services.

If my understanding is correct, as a consumer of a WSDL description I
expect that one what we now call operation, identified by its name, does
basically the same thing when invoked on any instance of the interface.

I'd have no such guarantee if we really only described and identified
the message structure contract; again I present the example of 
int sum(int, int)  and  int multiply(int, int). Without the application
semantics, these operations would become one. Do we want that?


                   Jacek Kopecky

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




On Thu, 2003-09-18 at 14:53, Brian Connell wrote:
> 
> 
> Jim,
> 
> > No. Services are entites which exchange messages, period.
> I don't think anybody disagrees with the idea that a service interaction
> between a Requester and a Provider involves the exchange of messages.  I
> agree 100%.
> 
> The term 'messageExchange' is most definitely a step in the right direction,
> away from the RPC implications of the term 'Operation'.
> 
> I believe that a more accurate term for 'Operation' than 'messageExchange'
> is 'serviceInteractions'.
> 
> 
> <interface>
>    <serviceInteractions>
>       <input message="..."/>
>       <output message="..."/>
>       <fault message="..."/>
>    </serviceInteractions>
> </interface>
> 
> 
> This term is clearer in meaning, in that it defines the interactions that
> may occur between a Requester and a Provider.
> 
> Brian
>

Received on Sunday, 28 September 2003 13:29:06 UTC