W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > June 2004

RE: Describing which blobs are to be optimized.

From: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 09:46:19 -0700
Message-ID: <DD35CC66F54D8248B6E04232892B63380267981B@RED-MSG-43.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Amelia A Lewis" <alewis@tibco.com>, "Ugo Corda" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>
Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>, <hugo@w3.org>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

Gudge is listening. I'm with Amy. I see no reason to reopen this
discussion ( which is in the archives ).

Gudge

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Amelia A Lewis
> Sent: 14 June 2004 09:41
> To: Ugo Corda
> Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org; hugo@w3.org; xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Describing which blobs are to be optimized.
> 
> 
> On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 09:12:30 -0700
> Ugo Corda <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com> wrote:
> 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Amelia A Lewis [mailto:alewis@tibco.com] 
> > > Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 7:32 AM
> > > To: Ugo Corda
> > > Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org; hugo@w3.org; xml-dist-app@w3.org
> > > Subject: Re: Describing which blobs are to be optimized.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 15:57:20 -0700
> > > Ugo Corda <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com> wrote:
> > > > I also have my doubts about the rationale for focusing on 
> > > the endpoint 
> > > > declaration of the provider agent. For instance, what does that 
> > > > endpoint mean in the case of an Out-only pattern? Wouldn't 
> > > it be more 
> > > > useful to have the endpoint declaration of the 
> "requester" agent 
> > > > instead?
> > > 
> > > Only if you're locked into thinking about HTTP and 
> > > client/server models.
> > > 
> > > In a pub/sub world, an out-only pattern (or any out-initial 
> > > pattern) is a nice fit, and we expect to see these widely 
> > > used.  This is because, in pub/sub, the service is talking, 
> > > not listening; publishing, not serving. 
> > > The other nodes interacting with the service are not 
> > > requesters/clients, but listeners/subscribers.
> > >
> > 
> > That's exactly my point. In that kind of scenario, it should more
> > important to focus on the endpoint of the 
> listener/subscriber than on
> > the endpoint of the service itself.
> 
> No, no, no!  Absolutely not!  The *publisher* defines what it 
> publishes. 
> It publishes en masse.  It is not controlled by the 
> subscriber.  It just
> spews.  It's up to the subscriber to separate wheat from chaff.
> 
> > > > I don't see why it should be that way and why we should 
> assume that 
> > > > the provider agent's behavior is better known than the 
> requester 
> > > > agent's behavior.
> > > 
> > > Because the WSDL is always from the point of view of the 
> > > service.  
> > 
> > This sounds more like an article of faith than a rational 
> explanation. 
> 
> It's neither.  It's a topic that has been hotly debated, and 
> adopted as a
> principle, which then leads to certain forms of information 
> being included
> in the document, and other forms excluded.
> 
> > In any case, if you guys have already gone over this before, I won't
> > insist (but I remain skeptical about the soundness of this 
> assumption).
> 
> *shrug*
> 
> Call for discussion of whether WSDL ought to be solely from 
> the point of
> view of the service, anyone?  Is Gudge listening?
> 
> Amy!
> -- 
> Amelia A. Lewis
> Senior Architect
> TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc.
> alewis@tibco.com
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 14 June 2004 12:46:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:18 GMT