W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > February 2006

Re: Fwd: Async Conversations captured in WSDL Model

From: Amelia A Lewis <alewis@tibco.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 11:26:41 -0500
To: "Ramkumar Menon" <ramkumar.menon@gmail.com>
Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Message-Id: <20060221112641.7e8ef78e.alewis@tibco.com>

On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 11:20:07 +0530
"Ramkumar Menon" <ramkumar.menon@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks. I absolutely agree with your point. My only contention was on
>the fact that by defining an asyncinteraction, the primary intent is
>not to define what services a particular service interacts with, but
>rather the *capability
>of a Service*, thru the fact that
>a) A Service "A" provides the implementation for a portType within the
>WSDL. [or in other words, the list of portTypes that  a service
>implements] 

This is drastically simplified in WSDL 2.0, because a service is
limited to a single interface (the equivalent of a portType).

>b) Any other  Service can implement another portType
>within the WSDL so as to initiate interactions with "A". or be a
>follower in interactions with "A". [or in other words, the list of
>portTypes that partner Services need to implement, in order to
>interact with the Service "A".]

Huh?  Since a service has an interface, then in order to interact with
it, you implement the described interactions in the interface, as a
consumer rather than a provider.  Simple.

>i.e., this enables definition of communication endpoints of a Service,
>in asbolutely similar fashion as that of synchronous request/reply
>paradaigm.

Have you read the material in progress under the auspices of the
WS-Addressing working group?  The Web Services Description working
group is certainly *not* going to replicate that work.

>The fact that the request  message is being used to initiate an
>orchestration is outside the scope of WSDL - Anything could have
>possibly done using the initiated message. Orchestration is just one
>of the things.

Are you talking about an input-only message, here?  It isn't at all
clear what you think the WSD WG ought to do in response to this.  Is
there an issue that you are raising against the specification?  Could
you clarify that issue, if so?  What capability is missing?

Amy!
(not speaking on behalf of the group, just as a participant)
-- 
Amelia A. Lewis
Senior Architect
TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc.
alewis@tibco.com
Received on Tuesday, 21 February 2006 16:26:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:38 GMT