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

Re: "operation name" .. an alternate proposal

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2004 23:42:57 -0400
To: Prasad Yendluri <pyendluri@webmethods.com>
Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Message-ID: <20040712034257.GT22429@markbaker.ca>

Hi Prasad,

On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 10:48:45PM -0700, Prasad Yendluri wrote:
> I am sure we can device pretty creative and private means to identify 
> the operation without it being in the message or
> communicated other wise directly. But why try and address this in 
> indirect and round about ways when we can make this
> part of the message where  it is really useful to have address the issue 
> the most direct way.
>
> If I am invoking operation 'foo' I name that operation in my message by 
> putting 'foo' in a well defined place.

I agree that it's generally more desirable to do this, primarily for
reasons of extensibility; that if the operation is in the message, then
it's easier to use a new operation than if it's not.  I was just hearing
that the WG wanted to be able to describe services for which the
operation was implied, and just wanted to say that I considered this
architecturally sound(*).

(*) so long as the operation was still self-descriptively identifiable as
    I described - unfortunately, much of what I've heard here recently
    is not

Mark.
-- 
Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        http://www.markbaker.ca

  Seeking work on large scale application/data integration projects
  and/or the enabling infrastructure for same.
Received on Sunday, 11 July 2004 23:42:33 GMT

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