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: Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@deri.org>
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 11:52:39 +0200
To: "Amelia A. Lewis" <alewis@tibco.com>
Cc: Paul Downey <paul.downey@bt.com>, WS-Description WG <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1092334056.2272.6.camel@Kalb>

Amy, I disagree. 

There's a difference between communicating the selector information out
of band and, at worst, dispatching randomly. 

Because I believe it is important to the client to know which operation
is in effect, I also believe the web service should give the client a
way to control the dispatch, for example by explaining the out-of-band
channel you assumed below.

If somebody comes up with a feature that does dispatch randomly, they
will not satisfy the spirit of the spec because I believe that to be
"the service must give the client a way to make sure it agrees with the
service on which operation is in effect".

I don't have the spec here at the moment, but if it doesn't say that (in
some way), it should be fixed, or else this restriction (mandatory
disclosure of the dispatch mechanism) really doesn't make sense.

Best regards,

                   Jacek Kopecky

                   Ph.D. student researcher
                   Digital Enterprise Research Institute, Innsbruck
                   http://www.deri.org/




On Thu, 2004-08-12 at 17:34, Amelia A Lewis wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 11:01:50 +0200
> Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@deri.org> wrote:
> > The problem I see with dispatching upon policy is that the client has no
> > idea which of the multiple operations with the same on the wire message
> > contents is in effect and also which of the potential different result
> > messages it can expect back (this can be appropriately modified for
> > non-req-resp patterns).
> 
> Sure they do.  It's communicated out of band.
> 
> Amy!
Received on Friday, 13 August 2004 09:53:13 GMT

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