Re: "operation name" .. an alternate proposal

David Booth wrote:

> At 12:31 PM 7/8/2004 -0700, Prasad Yendluri wrote:
>
>> . . . My preference would be towards a mechanism that captures [the 
>> operation name] in the message itself . . . .
>
> I agree that this would be conceptually cleaner layering, having the 
> message body include all and only the information that is semantically 
> relevant to the application (since the operation name is clearly 
> semantically relevant if it is used to dispatch).  However, my 
> perception is that this isn't the direction the industry winds are 
> blowing. 

I know. It might still be worth a try :)

Regards, Prasad