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

RE: On the Operation Name Mapping requirement

From: Savas Parastatidis <Savas.Parastatidis@newcastle.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 20:42:47 +0100
Message-ID: <37E80E80B681A24B8F768D607373CA80014BB54F@largo.campus.ncl.ac.uk>
To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

Hey Roberto,


> i.e. the response to a GameOver operation had its own distinct element
> name, then you wouldn't run afoul of the ONM!

Yes, we know that a <game-over-response /> would solve our problem but
that was not the point. Why should WSDL restrict the way we define our
message formats and message exchanges? (Please see me response to Glen's

> It's quite logical, after all: with the interfaces as originally
> if you see a nac:game-over message coming your way and you implement
> the Player interface, without a correlation facility you cannot know
> if it's a request or a response. So, when programming purely to the
> abstract (=interface) layer, you need some extra bit of information.
> The ONM requirement is that you have to tell the world (your clients,
> that is) what that is.

Hmmm... I see your point but following the same approach, shouldn't we
be describing everything in WSDL (security requirements, policies,
etc.)? But we have other mechanisms to describe those things. I think
the same should be with the service logic-specific correlation of
messages. Yes, correlation of messages at the "interface" level is good
hint but why make it so restrictive?

Received on Monday, 4 October 2004 19:45:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:54:50 UTC