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

Re: Which operation?

From: Amelia A Lewis <alewis@tibco.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 10:54:42 -0400
To: paul.downey@bt.com
Cc: distobj@acm.org, www-ws-desc@w3.org
Message-id: <20040615105442.62054f15.alewis@tibco.com>

On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 15:44:27 +0100
paul.downey@bt.com wrote:
> > after your Gold Paying status has expired.  Self-descriptive messaging
> > is your friend. 8-)
> 
> fair point, and FWIW i wouldn't publish a service that worked like this.
> i guess that's the question - do we want to prevent the *possibility* of
> using out of message state to dispatch messages to an operation?

It seems to me that if we expect WSDL 2.0 to be adopted in the places
where WSDL 1.1 is now used, then we must permit out-of-band signalling
mechanisms.  This "dispatch problem" is hairy, and I wish it would go
away, but my experience says that customers want it.

> Sorry, i'll try and rephrase. I think there is a trade-off here: if WSDL
> attempts to prevent publishing ambiguous WSDL documents it does so at
> the risk of excluding unforeseen (or out-of-message) dispatching
> mechanisms.

Exactly.  I don't think that we can do that and meet the needs of current
WSDL authors who wish to transition systems forward to WSDL 2.0.

Amy!
-- 
Amelia A. Lewis
Senior Architect
TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc.
alewis@tibco.com
Received on Tuesday, 15 June 2004 10:54:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:31 GMT