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

RE: Issue LC50 - MEPs

From: Yalcinalp, Umit <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 06:10:09 +0100
Message-ID: <99CA63DD941EDC4EBA897048D9B0061D0E07DC68@uspalx20a.pal.sap.corp>
To: "'Sanjiva Weerawarana'" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, "'Amelia A Lewis'" <alewis@tibco.com>
Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org

>-----Original Message-----
>From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org 
>[mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Sanjiva Weerawarana
>Sent: Sunday, Nov 21, 2004 17:11 PM
>To: Yalcinalp, Umit; 'Amelia A Lewis'
>Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
>Subject: Re: Issue LC50 - MEPs
>"Yalcinalp, Umit" <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com> writes:
>> >I agree in principle, but so far as I know, there is no way of
>> >specifying multi-transport operations in WSDL as it 
>currently stands.
>> >Are you suggesting that WS-Addressing or WS-MD or some 
>other mechanism
>> >is already able to define such operations?
>> >
>> You are right. Since we subject an operation to a specific binding,
>> we are limiting the operation to a single transport 
>mechanism in WSDL 2.0.
>Yes but that's *only* for how the message is sent to the service.
>If WS-Addressing's <ReplyTo> is used, for example, its possible to
>ask the service to send the reply using SOAP/courier-pigeon, if so

Are you suggesting that the input message and the output message in an inout pattern do not NEED to share the binding? What you seem to suggest that the pattern allows different bindings to apply to the incoming and outgoing message. We don't allow this, the binding is for the entire pattern hence governs all the messages. 

>The relationship between messages is achieved using RelatesTo.


Received on Monday, 22 November 2004 05:10:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:54:51 UTC