- From: Roberto Chinnici <Roberto.Chinnici@Sun.COM>
- Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 09:47:07 -0800
- To: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
- Cc: WS Description List <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote: > Hi Roberto, > > You do realize that the cleaner syntax you proposed is isomorphic > to the serviceGroup idea syntax right? Syntax-wise, yes. Component-wise, no, since I'm not proposing to introduce a Service Interface component with first class status. It also helps that I didn't use the word "resource" anywhere. BTW, I missed that f2f, but the pictures [1] sure look impressive! > I gotta think about your proposal (and consult the other 186K > technical employees of IBM) before I can respond. Take your time... ;-) > I am however a bit disappointed that one person can make a well- > publicized critique of WSDL and that that gives sufficient ground > to re-open an issue we belaboured over for so long. Sigh. Actually, the proposal has been brewing for a while. Every time that I tried to explain the alternatives to people (i.e. splitting a web service in n "services" to fit the WSDL model, or creating a giant derived interface), they didn't look happy, to say the least. > Also, we'd be going back to WD (I would absolutely insist on that; > this is a fundamental change) ==> at least 6 more months? Sigh sigh. If it helps, I swear I'm not readying a proposal to reintroduce message. ;-) [1] http://www.w3.org/2003/05/wsd-pics/dcp_4975.jpg Roberto
Received on Wednesday, 24 November 2004 17:47:10 UTC