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

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

From: <paul.downey@bt.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 18:10:16 +0100
Message-ID: <2B7789AAED12954AAD214AEAC13ACCEF2709DA3F@i2km02-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net>
To: <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, <dbooth@w3.org>, <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>
Cc: <umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

Hi Gudge!

> 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'm OK with not preventing WSDL from using 'voodoo dispatching' since 
i don't want to restrict or prevent other unforeseen dispatching
mechanisms being employed in the future.

However, i do worry that a customer could in this scenario send 
'location' to an endpoint and instead of calling 'getTempAtLocation' 
unintentionally invokes 'nukeLocation'.

i'm also concerned that the sender may be expecting '32C' in response
but instead receives 'DEFCON 1'.

can you reassure me this isn't going to happen in practice?

> Some of you are wondering what happened to operation A. 

i am, i am!

> But that's another story...

bah .. a cliff hanger :-(

Paul


-- 
Paul Sumner Downey
Web Services Integration
BT Exact
Received on Tuesday, 13 July 2004 13:10:38 GMT

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