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

Re: help with incorporating operation name v3 proposal (issue 168)

From: Umit Yalcinalp <umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 11:27:08 -0700
Message-ID: <4107EFFC.3010805@oracle.com>
To: Amelia A Lewis <alewis@tibco.com>
Cc: Glen Daniels <gdaniels@sonicsoftware.com>, dorchard@bea.com, www-ws-desc@w3.org


Amelia A Lewis wrote:

>On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 18:41:16 -0400
>Glen Daniels <gdaniels@sonicsoftware.com> wrote:
>  
>
>>I'm not sure I understand what you think is "absurd" here.  We are
>>    
>>
>
>Creating a feature which, in toto, reads "This feature, identified by the
>URI http://www.example.org/alkahest/, fulfills the requirement of being a
>required extension."
>
>And this *will* happen, because in the case under discussion (which we
>shouldn't be spending time on now, since it's already been voted on, and I
>lost), at least two companies that I know of will document how to sidestep
>the Stupid Requirement.  
>
Well, as they say sticks and stones ...

>Since all that a processor can tell, looking at
>the thing, is that it contains or does not contain an extension which is
>marked wsdl:required, that's all that can be tested.  If that's missing,
>the processor can say "missing required extension," but can't identify the
>extension that's required.  Something is required to be required.  
>
>We encounter a great many companies who want to describe existing legacy
>services, which may not, in the first pass of modernization, actually use
>a reasonable dispatch mechanism.  They have to put *something* there.  So
>they will.
>
That is fine. The other companies that try to interoperate with them 
will see the "something" in the WSDL, and decide whether they can
comply with it, precisely whether that "Something" requires them to do 
something, put additional things on the envelope, etc.

>
>*shrug*  Clearly, that's an optional extension.  Only it isn't, it's
>required.
>
>What's absurd is for the Description language to make a Prescription for
>best practice.  A recommendation, fine.  A requirement?  Just means less
>interop.  Why bother defining the algorithm you use to dispatch, when you
>can just plug in Meaningless Feature to fulfill Stupid Requirement?
>  
>
No, it is the other way around. If you declare that you have some 
magical secret souce that you deliver the requirement, and I don't know 
about it, I can not interoperate with you. At least, the secret souce is 
declared in WSDL, no longer secret albeit,  more interop. ;-)

>dadadadadadadadadadadadadadadadadadadadadadadadadadada dada
>  
>
>Amy!
>  
>
Cheers,

--umit

-- 
Umit Yalcinalp                                  
Consulting Member of Technical Staff
ORACLE
Phone: +1 650 607 6154                          
Email: umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com
Received on Wednesday, 28 July 2004 14:28:27 GMT

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