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: Amelia A Lewis <alewis@tibco.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 10:53:39 -0400
To: Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@deri.org>
Cc: paul.downey@bt.com, www-ws-desc@w3.org
Message-id: <20040813105339.4a0700c6.alewis@tibco.com>

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 11:52:39 +0200
Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@deri.org> wrote:

> Amy, I disagree. 

*shrug*

We have clients who will *not* be able to use a standard URL describing a
dispatch mechanism, because they aren't using one.  They want to use WSDL
as a description language.  They are not yet ready to switch everything
over to do it all absolutely the right way.

I have no problem with the concept that this is a "better" way of doing
things.  I'd even call it a "best practice".  But that

Does

NOT

make

it

a

*requirement.*

Except when the WG gets a hair up its ....

I happen to *know* of at least three significant installations which want
to use the better formalisms in WSDL 2.0, but don't want to expose their
current dispatch mechanism (or even attempt to describe it, except
informally).  In two cases, the selector is a value (or several values) in
fields in the data in the body of the message.  In the other, it's beyond
my comprehension (but hey, *I'm* not writing a client, just supplying
toolkits).

So, if Glen isn't going to permit this stupid requirement to be turned off
in the software that he writes, then he won't make any of these sales. 
Fine.  I am perfectly willing to say "the service must give the client a
way to make sure it agrees with the service on which operation is in
effect," but *NOT NECESSARILY IN THE WSDL*.  Best practice, fine.  Let's
encourage people in that direction.  But locking people out because they
can't afford to re-code everything to conform to a best practice is
stupid.  We haven't done that, of course, because at least several toolkit
vendors will build in the workaround, the alkahest of URLs, that fulfills
any requirement for a wsdl:required feature and melts away plaque, bad
karma, and silly requirements.

[pauses, breathes deeply, reads content, pounds head on desk, can't really
come up with better, sends anyway ...]

Amy!
-- 
Amelia A. Lewis
Senior Architect
TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc.
alewis@tibco.com
Received on Friday, 13 August 2004 14:54:08 GMT

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