W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > May 2005

Proposal to resolve issue LC82 - Operation Name Mapping Bug

From: Tom Jordahl <tomj@macromedia.com>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 15:37:32 -0400
Message-ID: <39A72E1EBF03EB44AACFD8036D1489F9962AD6@p02exm01.macromedia.com>
To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

This message is in fulfillment of my action item [1] to propose text to
resolve Last Call Issue LC82 [2].  The complaint was that we were not
defining that the *initial* message in the exchange had to be unique but
rather that *all* the messages in an exchange should be unique.

The original text reads as follows [3]:
-----------------------------------------
2.14.1.1 Operation Name Mapping (non-normative)
Note: This section is best-practice and hence non-normative.

It is generally desirable that, when a message recipient receives a
message, it knows how to handle the message. It is generally desirable
that, when a message recipient receives a message, it knows how to
handle the message. In WSDL 2.0 terms, this means being able to map back
the message to a single Interface Operation. However, this is NOT always
possible. There are cases when multiple Interface Operations could
correspond to the same received message.
-----------------------------------------

I propose changing the sense to specifically reference the initial
message:
-----------------------------------------
It is generally desirable that, when a message recipient receives an
initial message in a message exchange, it knows how to handle that
message. In WSDL 2.0 terms, this means being able to map the first
message in an exchange back to a single Interface Operation.
-----------------------------------------


The following text also needs to be changed:
-----------------------------------------
... Third, consider all Interface Message Reference components specified
in the {interface message references} properties of said Interface
Operation components. Fourth, consider the Interface Message Reference
components that have the same value for their {direction} property
(i.e., either the token in or the token out). These are the Interface
Message Reference components considered above.
-----------------------------------------

I propose the following change:
-----------------------------------------
... Third, consider the initial (as specified by the Message Exchange
Pattern for the operation) Interface Message Reference components
specified in the {interface message references} properties of said
Interface Operation components. Fourth, consider the initial Interface
Message Reference components that have the same value for their
{direction} property (i.e., either the token in or the token out). These
are the Interface Message Reference components considered above.
-----------------------------------------


The whole "First.., Second.., Third.., Fourth..." text gets pretty hairy
to follow, but it is concise, and in a spec that is a good thing. :-)


[1] http://www.w3.org/2005/05/26-ws-desc-minutes.html#action06
[2] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC82
[3]
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20.html#Serv
ice_OperationName

--
Tom Jordahl
Macromedia Server Development
Received on Thursday, 26 May 2005 19:37:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:36 GMT