On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 12:22:24 -0700 Umit Yalcinalp <umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com> wrote: > Amelia A Lewis wrote: > >On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 12:10:04 -0700 > >Umit Yalcinalp <umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com> wrote: > > > > > >>So, the idea is not to restrict/expose how to dispatch. It is to > >expose >to the client what the client must do. Dispatching is web > >service's >business, exposing the necessary contract is WSDL's. > >> > >> > > > >Absolutely agreed. > > > >So you agree that we don't need a feature on the abstract interface > >that indicates how dispatch is accomplished? It is unnecessary to the > >contract. > > > Come on. Playing with words do not get anywhere here. I am not playing with words. > We do need a MANDATORY extension in WSDL which exposes what the client > must to for dispatch. It is necessary for the contract. We do *not* need to indicate the method of dispatch in the WSDL. The WSDL *must* indicate what information and metadata must be included in the message and its protocol envelope. What the service uses that metadata or information for has *nothing* to do with the contract. Amy! -- Amelia A. Lewis Senior Architect TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc. alewis@tibco.comReceived on Tuesday, 13 July 2004 15:52:05 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:32 GMT