W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > December 2005

Re: What it means to "get rid of MEPs"

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 18:19:16 -0500
To: Rich Salz <rsalz@datapower.com>
Cc: David Hull <dmh@tibco.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFB7E2674A.2DD4374C-ON852570E0.007FCB76-852570E0.00802DD0@lotus.com>

Rich Salz wrote:

> Noah Mendelsohn wrote:

> > SOAP needs to stand on its own without WSDL.

> Is there anyone here who disagrees with this?

Well, there certainly have been times recently when I've thought I heard 
people say words to the effect:  we don't need MEPs in SOAP and/or we 
don't need detail X to be covered by MEPs in SOAP because WSDL will be 
there to provide the answer.   Maybe or maybe not the implication is to 
suggest an inappropriate dependence of SOAP on WSDL, but I think there is 
at least a risk that we would inadvertently fail to take enough care in 
having SOAP stand on its own.  As I think I mentioned earlier, even those 
servers that are themselves built with the help of WSDL benefit from an 
ability to interact with software (e.g. built in scripting languages) that 
may not be WSDL-based.  Of course, everyone involved needs to agree on the 
contract, or safely realize that they haven't agreed.  The good news is 
that SOAP provides you pretty good ways of using mustUnderstand and 
(crucially in this case) binding specifications to check on the level of 
agreement without necessarily using WSDL.

--------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
1-617-693-4036
--------------------------------------
Received on Friday, 23 December 2005 23:19:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:20 GMT