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

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

From: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 07:13:53 -0700
Message-ID: <DD35CC66F54D8248B6E04232892B633802B04690@RED-MSG-43.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Tom Jordahl" <tomj@macromedia.com>, "WS Description List" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Tom Jordahl
> Sent: 13 July 2004 15:05
> To: 'WS Description List'
> Subject: RE: Action Item 2004-07-01 Solution to 168/R114
> 
> 
> Gudge,
> 
> I understand your scenario, but I don't like it.  It's icky. :-)

By icky, do you mean 'not RPC'?

> 
> I would much prefer that WSDL 2.0 does not allow this 
> situation to occur. 

Then WSDL 2.0 will not be able to describe a certain class of service.

> As
> I read the requirement (114), we are tasked with providing a 
> mechanism to
> ensure that this does not occur.

Then I think the requirement is wrong.

Gudge

> 
> I am fairly agnostic about how we accomplish this, I think I 
> would prefer
> unique GEDs (and I voted for that) but I am also willing to support
> Sanjiva's SOAPAction oriented (for the SOAP binding) proposal.
> 
> I am not so much in favor of a features and properties based approach
> however, as I believe this would create interop problems from day 1.
> 
> --
> Tom Jordahl
> Macromedia Server Development
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Martin Gudgin
> Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 6:01 AM
> To: David Booth; Jeffrey Schlimmer
> Cc: Umit Yalcinalp; WS Description List
> Subject: RE: Action Item 2004-07-01 Solution to 168/R114
> 
> 
> 
> Let's take an interface with operations B and C both of which have the
> same input message, X. Operation B has an output message Y, while
> operation C has a different output message Z. Both B and C use the
> In-Out pattern.  Whether you get message Y or Z back depends on the
> content of X. Let's for the sake of argument say that if a particular
> value in X is over 1000 you get Z, otherwise you get Y.
> 
> I believe that this is a coherent (if somewhat simplistic) example in
> messaging systems. I also understand that it does not fit particularly
> well into the RPC style. And that the WSDL does not describe 
> the details
> of how the server determines whether to send Y or Z. C'est la 
> vie. There
> is still enough information in the WSDL to construct messages that the
> service will accept and to deconstruct messages the service will emit,
> that is to interoperate with the service.
> 
> Some of you are wondering what happened to operation A. But that's
> another story...
> 
> Gudge
> 
>  
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 13 July 2004 10:14:15 GMT

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