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

Re: Issue LC50 - MEPs

From: Amelia A Lewis <alewis@tibco.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 17:37:07 -0500
To: David Booth <dbooth@w3.org>
Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Message-id: <20041118173707.053c70d6.alewis@tibco.com>

(fixed bouncy-bouncy address list)

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 16:27:48 -0500
David Booth <dbooth@w3.org> wrote:
> The assertion isn't that the client doesn't care.  The client may care
> about many things that are outside the scope of WSDL.  The point is

This one isn't outside the scope of WSDL.  It's a service description
language, not a code generation language.

> merely that client1 doesn't receive the reply when the reply is sent
> instead to client2.  

client1 may be required to supply the address to which the reply is
sent.  *Surely* this is unambiguously within the scope of things that
are described by WSDL?  I'm seriously boggled that anyone could suggest
otherwise.

> Therefore, from the point of view of modeling the
> interaction in WSDL, there is only a single one-way message from the
> client1 to the service, or a single message from the service to
> client2. 

I completely reject the idea that if you don't have an open socket, it
isn't request/response.  It is perfectly feasible to have
request/response without it, by supplying the replyto address and a
correlation identifier.  This is how it works in the world outside HTTP
for the standard in-out MEP!

Either asynchronous communications can *never* bind the in-out MEP, or
they can bind both the existing in-out MEP and another MEP (p2c?).  It
is *not* required that they discard the request/response semantic just
because the message is redirected, and the fact that the messages are
correlated *is* important to both sides in the exchange!

> More concretely, client1 doesn't generate stubs and skeletons
> for client2. 

None of my clients generate stubs or skeletons anyway.  Please do not
use this argument; we're not recreating COM.  At least, we're not solely
doing so.  My clients need the information about message correlation and
addressing in these MEPs.  It is *not* adequate to pretend that they're
independent operations with no relationship.

> The fact that client1 needs to send along an address of
> client2 is outside the scope of WSDL, along with any other
> application-specific info that may be needed.

No.  I think you're thinking of IDL.

Amy!
-- 
Amelia A. Lewis
Senior Architect
TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc.
alewis@tibco.com
Received on Thursday, 18 November 2004 22:37:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:33 GMT