- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2004 16:13:45 -0500
- To: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org, www-ws-desc@w3.org
On Wed, 2004-04-07 at 15:22, David Orchard wrote:
> Dear TAG,
>
> On behalf of the WSD Working Group, I would like to inform you of the WSD WGs decision regarding description of safety of operations, part of TAG issue 7.
>
> The recently published WSDL 2.0 Part 1: Core WD provides a property called "safety" on interface operations [1]. With this, we believe that we have delivered an appropriate solution to the request to describe the safety of operations.
Let's take a look... "{safety} A boolean indicating whether the
operation is asserted to be safe (as defined in Section 3.5 of [Web
Architecture]) for users of the described service to invoke. If this
property is false or is not set, then no assertion has been made about
the safety of the operation, thus the operation MAY or MAY NOT be safe.
However, an operation SHOULD be marked safe if it meets the criteria for
a safe interaction defined in Section 3.5 of [Web Architecture]. The
default value of this property is false."
Yes, that's exactly what I was looking for. Nifty!
I look forward to hearing about support in tools and such.
> We welcome any questions, concerns, or comments regarding the wsdl 2.0 description of safety of operations, including support for our solution.
>
> Cheers,
> Dave Orchard
> On behalf of the WSD WG.
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl20/#InterfaceOperation
--
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
see you at the WWW2004 in NY 17-22 May?
Received on Wednesday, 7 April 2004 17:13:14 UTC