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

Re: Minority objection to requiring unique GEDs or required feature to distinguish operations

From: Amelia A Lewis <alewis@tibco.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:07:13 -0400
To: Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@deri.org>
Cc: WS-Description WG <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Message-id: <85D6F00B-0670-11D9-A686-0050E416A465@tibco.com>

Hi, Jacek,

On Sep 4, 2004, at 8:57 PM, Jacek Kopecky wrote:
> Amy, after this pretty long time I finally got to read this reply of
> yours and I think I see your point now.

Thanks.

> I think to you the situation boils down to either providing a unique 
> URI
> that none of the "random strangers" knows anyway or not providing
> anything.
>
> In both cases a random stranger will not be able to connect to the
> system so there's no issue here.

Yes.

> The problem with SHOULD is - what is the behavior in case the dispatch
> mechanism is unspecified? In such a case, if I was a toolkit, I'd spew
> out a warning that the client application using me better know about 
> the
> particular dispatch mechanism of the particular service. So far it's 
> the
> same as handling unknown, mandatorily explicit URIs.

Umm?  Failing versus issuing a warning?

> But finally, without the requirement, one cannot tell whether two
> different services with the same binding use the same dispatch 
> mechanism
> or not, if one is not explicitly mentioned. I'm slightly uneasy about
> this.

On the other hand, this gives me warm fuzzies.  The dispatch mechanism 
(or mechanisms) used by the service are probably not properly the 
interest of the users of the service.

> But I'd have no significant problem (and certainly no objection any
> more) to making the requirement a recommendation (SHOULD).

I think that this would address our objection (not speaking for other 
signatories of the minority opinion, however, just for 
TIBCO/Extensibility).

Amy!
-- 
Amelia A. Lewis
Senior Architect
TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc.
alewis@tibco.com
Received on Tuesday, 14 September 2004 17:04:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:32 GMT