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

RE: 2004-02-12 Action Item: Clarification to the OperationName feature

From: Savas Parastatidis <Savas.Parastatidis@newcastle.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 18:37:57 -0000
Message-ID: <37E80E80B681A24B8F768D607373CA801CD35D@largo.campus.ncl.ac.uk>
To: "Amelia A Lewis" <alewis@tibco.com>, "Glen Daniels" <gdaniels@sonicsoftware.com>
Cc: <distobj@acm.org>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

+++1 to Amy and Jim.

[snip]
> 
> "message exchange pattern" is a much better term than "operation", but
> we *don't* want to end up in another argument about naming, please the
> gods of small forest pools and sandy ocean beaches.
> 

In fact, if people in this mailing list (that's the ws-desc one)
remember, Jim and I proposed the renaming of /interface/operation to
/interface/messageExchange and during the discussion more terms were
mentioned... /interactions/messageExchange or /interactions/exchange
(was it issue #88?).

For example...

<wsdl:interactions>
   <wsdl:exchange ...>
     ...
   </wsdl:exchange>
   <wsdl:exchange ...>
     ...
   </wsdl:exchange>
</wsdl:interactions>

I think the above much better captures the role of WSDL (at least as the
way Jim and I see it... and I guess Amy). We are talking about a
description of the message exchange patterns and the formats of those
messages. We are not describing interfaces. Many toolkits have been
treating WSDL as an IDL for objects and that complete misses the point
of Web Services and as all of us know, Web Services != Distributed
objects :-)) (yes, that one again! :-)

Just my 2p.

Regards,
.savas.

PS: If my memory serves me well, it was decided that it was too much of
a change (have low bandwidth at the moment and can't check the archives
to provide a links... sorry!).
Received on Monday, 23 February 2004 13:40:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:15:02 UTC