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 15:51:45 -0400
To: Umit Yalcinalp <umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com>
Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Message-id: <20040713155145.172c59c2.alewis@tibco.com>

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.com
Received 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