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: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 10:55:05 +0100
Message-ID: <2B7789AAED12954AAD214AEAC13ACCEF2709DA42@i2km02-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net>
To: <Jim.Webber@newcastle.ac.uk>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

Jim Webber wrote: 

>> I'm not pretending there is no operation.

> I'm not pretending either - I am certain of it :-) WSDL presents 
> a view (a useful view at that) of a hole through which messages 
> can be poked. "operation" as I said in an earlier message is just 
> a first chop at refining in what kind of patterns messages can be 
> poked through the hole.

OK, i'm happy for you and Gudge to publish _your_ WSDLs with a 
single operation "stuffHappens" or whatever. That's fine - you
both have a strong architectural POV, one shared by many others. 

But there is another, equally valid POV where a WSDL author has gone 
to the trouble of providing several "buckets", each of which has 
different semantics: "getTemp", "nukeLocation" etc. Lots of other 
people want to be able to describe this explicitly, and that's also 
fine by me.

FWIW i can't really see many services being published in which the 
'action undertaken' isn't obvious for a whole host of reasons, not 
least access control and auditing. After all, if you really don't 
really know what's going to happen when you send a message, or what 
you can expect in return, then it's not a very useful service! 

So whilst i'm happy for the declaration of "which operation" will 
actually be invoked to the good sense of the WSDL author, i'd be 
very unhappy if that were to be taken in any way as our crowning  
either POV.

Paul
Received on Wednesday, 14 July 2004 05:55:26 GMT

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