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: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 11:17:17 -0700
Message-ID: <DD35CC66F54D8248B6E04232892B633802F688E3@RED-MSG-43.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Jeff Mischkinsky" <jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com>, "David Booth" <dbooth@w3.org>, <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>

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Mischkinsky [mailto:jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com] 
> Sent: 10 August 2004 05:20
> To: David Booth; Martin Gudgin; www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Cc: Amelia A Lewis; Sanjiva Weerawarana; Jeffrey Schlimmer; Hugo Haas
> Subject: Re: Minority objection to requiring unique GEDs or 
> required feature to distinguish operations
> 
> 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?

Jeff, you seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that web
service messages only contain elements from W3C namespaces. I'm sorry to
inform you that this is not the case.

Gudge
Received on Tuesday, 10 August 2004 18:17:17 GMT

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