- From: Amelia A Lewis <alewis@tibco.com>
- Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2004 11:11:39 -0400
- To: paul.downey@bt.com
- Cc: hugo@w3.org, dbooth@w3.org, www-ws-desc@w3.org
On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 13:04:11 +0100 paul.downey@bt.com wrote: > Hugo wrote: > > Therefore, thinking out loud, I think that we could say in Part 1 > > that, if the GED of operations is not unique, extra information must > > be used in order to unambiguously identify the operation relating to a > > message received by a service, by using a feature at the interface > > operation level. We could even define such a feature, say the > > Operation Name Specification Feature, which would be an abstract > > feature: we would not define how it is implemented (in SOAP, HTTP, or > > any other way), just noting that its use makes the receiver of the > > message aware of which operation the message is related to. > > So the default for an absent feature (or do i mean property?) would be > routing via the GED, but this may be overridden to point to another > mechanism? > > Either way the publisher of a service would have to explicitly declare > in WSDL the dispatching mechanism being employed. +1. This permits the flexibility that was generally lost in earlier proposals. Amy! -- Amelia A. Lewis Senior Architect TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc. alewis@tibco.com
Received on Thursday, 1 July 2004 11:12:10 UTC