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

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

From: Amelia A Lewis <alewis@tibco.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 12:03:24 -0400
To: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Message-id: <20040713120324.766d76da.alewis@tibco.com>

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 07:13:53 -0700
Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com> wrote:
> > 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
> > 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.

Which is a deep, serious problem.

> > 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.

In fact, Tom's interpretation of the requirement is not necessarily the
correct one.  R114 may be taken to read as "permit authors to indicate
this" rather than "require authors to indicate this".  If it is "permit",
we're done.  If it is "require", then there will be significant opposition
to selection of any particular dispatch algorithm, which in turn means
that the indication of a dispatch algorithm must be "open", which means
that I can define mine as "none://of.your/business/".

The client can trust that the service *will* dispatch the message,
somehow.  How, is not information necessary to the client.

Amy!
-- 
Amelia A. Lewis
Senior Architect
TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc.
alewis@tibco.com
Received on Tuesday, 13 July 2004 12:03:58 GMT

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