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,

[snip]

> 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
message).

> It's quite logical, after all: with the interfaces as originally
defined,
> 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?

Regards,
.savas.
Received on Monday, 4 October 2004 19:45:02 GMT

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