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

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

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 12:05:31 -0800
Message-ID: <DF1BAFBC28DF694A823C9A8400E71EA202B06E24@RED-MSG-30.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Glen Daniels" <gdaniels@sonicsoftware.com>
Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

Glen wrote:
> So if your messages "conform to the spirit of the feature", what we're
> saying is that you should note, in the WSDL, exactly how they do that.
> For instance, I could easily imagine a feature which says simply "all
> message element QNames are unique".  That's fine, but you need to
> express that.

Unique message element QNames is a reasonable way to ensure that a
service can dispatch a message to the right operation.  But as I
understand it, such a mechanism would not satisfy the OperationName
feature, which would require extra (and unnecessary in this case) goo to
be squirted into the message.

I agree that a service needs to be able to know what to do with any
particular message.  That's built into my assumption about how to build
any Web service.  But constraining the solution to this problem to the
particular strategy of inserting the Operation Name into the message
doesn't seem right.

In any case, if functionality is always "required", there doesn't seem
to be much point in giving it a feature URI that can appear in the
markup and will appear in the component model, instead of just using
text in the spec.
Received on Monday, 23 February 2004 15:05:34 UTC

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