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

Re: Which operation?

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 10:06:02 -0700
Message-Id: <47A03728-BEEE-11D8-8A84-000A95BD86C0@mnot.net>
Cc: <distobj@acm.org>, <dorchard@bea.com>, <dbooth@w3.org>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
To: <paul.downey@bt.com>


On Jun 15, 2004, at 3:46 AM, <paul.downey@bt.com> wrote:
> AIUI in the above example either:
>
>   1) some mechanism beyond the GED* is being used to dispatch
>      an incoming schema1 to the individual operations
>
>   2) there is no mechanism - this WSDL is ambiguous.
>
> In the case of (1) it should be possible to describe the mechanism
> being used in a WSDL document, e.g.:
>
>    - a binding specific mechanism is being used, in which case a
>      binding specific description should be in place.
>
>    - it could be a generic addressing header mechanism, in which case
>      we have extensions or F&Ps
>
>    - or it could be a mechanism describable in the interface, e.g.
>      another element or attribute uniquely identifies the operation.
>      Maybe this is the case a generic mechanism akin to XOP's use
>      of XQDM[1].
>
>    - finally it could be something completely out of band - my username
>      denotes i'm a Gold Paying Customer, or first 100 messages each day
>      are Gold, the remainder will be "bog-standard". I'm not sure what
>      we could do here in the WSDL language beyond kick it out to an
>      extension mechanism - this kind of interaction is outside of the
>      domain of WSDL and in that scary land of "policy".
>
> So WSDL could describe the dispatching mechanism being used via binding
> specific mechanisms or extensions and i don't think we should do 
> anything
> to prevent other to attempt to recognise (2) at the cost of not being 
> able
> to describe all of (1) as well as other unforeseen dispatching 
> mechanisms.

Yup; well said. I was only pointing out the common case of using URI 
components (e.g., path segments, query arguments) to do the dispatch, 
and therefore the desirability of describing them using bindings.

Cheers,

--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 15 June 2004 13:06:07 GMT

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