W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > August 2004

Re: Minority objection to requiring unique GEDs or required feature to distinguish operations

From: Jeff Mischkinsky <jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 05:20:19 -0700
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20040809203438.02a10490@rgmamerimap.oraclecorp.com>
To: "David Booth" <dbooth@w3.org>, "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Cc: "Amelia A Lewis" <alewis@tibco.com>, "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, "Jeffrey Schlimmer" <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>, Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org>

At 02:27 PM 8/9/2004, David Booth wrote:
[snip]

>At 08:07 AM 7/29/2004 -0700, Martin Gudgin wrote:
>
>>The WSDL 2.0 Part 1 Last Call Working Draft[1] (will) REQUIRE that if
>>operations within an interface do not reference unique global element
>>declarations then a WSDL Feature component MUST be used to indicate how
>>operations are distinguished 'on-the-wire'. IBM Corp., Microsoft Corp.
>>and TIBCO Software, Inc. object to this design for several reasons;

[snip reasons 1-4 not addressed in this email ]

>>5.      This restriction makes WSDL 2.0 unable to describe a class of
>>message exchanges allowed by WS-Addressing.
>
>Again, I don't see how this can be true.  Can you give an example of a 
>message exchange that would be prohibited by the operation name mapping 
>requirement?

Even if it were to be true, I don't see why this is relevant to the work of 
the WSDL 2.0 WG. At some time in the future, some derivative of one of the 
current or future versions of WS-Addressing may become a W3C REC or adopted 
standard by some recognized standards body. In the meantime could someone 
point me to a WSD WG requirement that would justify why it is in scope of 
this WG?

    cheers,
     jeff

Jeff Mischkinsky                      jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com
Director, Web Services Standards      +1(650)506-1975
Consulting Member Technical Staff     500 Oracle Parkway M/S 4OP9
Oracle Corporation                    Redwood Shores, CA 94065
Received on Tuesday, 10 August 2004 12:29:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:32 GMT