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

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

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 12:53:44 -0400
To: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, WS Description List <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20040714165344.GH28869@markbaker.ca>

On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 12:28:38PM -0400, Mark Baker wrote:
> IMO, if you really want to do large scale computing with document
> exchange, what you need is a contract that is common to all services.
> Jim and Savas' implied "processMessage" is such a contract, and with
> it you get to use "MSFT" as your message, *and* be self-descriptive
> (albeit with the cost of stomping on some existing specs, which is the
> part of their suggestion which I disagree with).

BTW, in case it helps explain the issue, I should clarify that by using
this style of message, the client can have no expectation that the quote
will be returned on the response to the "MSFT" message, because to have
such an expectation would be assuming a contract with "getStockQuote"
(*not* processMessage) semantics and would therefore have the same
non-self-descriptive problems as the other approach I'm critiquing.

Note that Jim and Savas and I have talked about this extensively, but
they still disagree with me.

Mark.
-- 
Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        http://www.markbaker.ca

  Seeking work on large scale application/data integration projects
  and/or the enabling infrastructure for same.
Received on Wednesday, 14 July 2004 12:53:15 GMT

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