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