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

RE: Which operation?

From: Ugo Corda <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 12:11:32 -0700
Message-ID: <EDDE2977F3D216428E903370E3EBDDC9032B8B3E@MAIL01.stc.com>
To: "Liu, Kevin" <kevin.liu@sap.com>, "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>, "David Booth" <dbooth@w3.org>
Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

I think Mark was referring to the common practice of establishing a
close connection between the operation name and the corresponding agent
implementation. For instance, Java's JAX-RPC 1.1 says (WSDL to Java

4.3.4 WSDL Operation
A wsdl:operation defined in a wsdl:portType maps to a Java method on the
mapped Java service endpoint interface. [...] A wsdl:operation is named
by the name attribute. The operation name maps to the name of the
corresponding method on the mapped Java service endpoint interface.

and also (Java to WSDL mapping):

5.5.3 Service Endpoint Interface
A service endpoint interface (that extends java.rmi.Remote) is mapped to
the wsdl:portType element. [...] Methods defined in a service endpoint
interface are mapped to the wsdl:operation definitions in the
corresponding wsdl:portType.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Liu, Kevin
> Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 11:13 AM
> To: 'Mark Baker'; David Booth
> Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Which operation?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Mark Baker
> Sent: Monday, Jun 14, 2004 08:13 PM
> >> My answer would be: That depends on the semantics of the 
> application, 
> >> and
> >> the implementation of the provider agent, which are 
> outside the scope of 
> >> the WSDL 2.0 language.
> >I've heard this before, but I don't really buy it, and I don't think 
> >any WSDL developer would buy it either.  Every use of WSDL I've seen 
> >uses the wsdl:operation to define the contract.
> Hi Mark,
> Can you elaborate why wsdl:operation is used to define the 
> contract? To my understanding, the contract is the messages 
> to be exchanged. Operation names provides some application 
> semantics, but have no significance in the run time message. 
> One might define some operation style (such as RPC style as 
> defined in part 1)  to require that the top element of a 
> message must be named same as the operation name, but the 
> "contract" is still in the message schema. 
> Best Regards,
> Kevin
Received on Tuesday, 15 June 2004 15:12:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:54:48 UTC