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

RE: Action Item 2004-07-01 Solution to 168/R114

From: <paul.downey@bt.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2004 13:48:40 +0100
Message-ID: <2B7789AAED12954AAD214AEAC13ACCEF2709DA18@i2km02-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net>
To: <umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com>, <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

Ümit wrote:
>> Jonathan Marsh wrote:
>> Also, how does this address Paul's concern at
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jul/0043.html?
>
> I believe Paul's concern is addressed by requiring the mandatory
> extension to be declared in WSDL. The addressing mechanism engaged 
> will provide the operation name to be present in the message exchange 
> regardless whether it is async binding or not. 
>
> Paul? 

my concern about asynchronous routing was muddled in that for a moment
i saw dispatching a message received asynchronously differently to 
those framed in a synchronous conversation.

i've now come to my senses and realise they are identical and 
whatever proposal is used to resolve issue 168 should also resolve 
this 'issue'.

i'm not, yet, convinced that WSDL (the language) should require a 
mandatory dispatching mechanism, however limiting the scope of 
'mandatory' to within the RPCstyle does makes sense to me.

Paul
Received on Thursday, 8 July 2004 09:04:11 GMT

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