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

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

From: <paul.downey@bt.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 08:39:00 +0100
Message-ID: <2B7789AAED12954AAD214AEAC13ACCEF2709DA59@i2km02-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net>
To: <alewis@tibco.com>
Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Hi Amy!

> As others have said on this subject, if someone wants to place some
> details of how they are performing dispatching in the WSDL, that's fine;
> I'm not opposed to an optional feature or extension of that sort.
> 
> I'm strongly opposed to mandating this, because I've had to deal
> frequently with customer-generated WSDL for which such a required feature
> would be meaningless. Failing to deliver what the [potential] users of
> the spec require strikes me as a Really Bad Idea.

So a WSDL interface describes two operations both with the same input message
but with different actions and output messages. Would you expect something 
inside the message to describe the operation to be invoked?

Or could the dispatching be achieved from something out of band - it's raining, 
i've sent twenty messages previously, it's my birthday, the ISS is overhead, etc? 
If so, where would this policy based dispatching be described?

i'm not totally against you all wanting to do such a thing, just want to know
how far down this rabbit hole we're all headed.

Paul

Received on Thursday, 15 July 2004 03:39:11 GMT

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