- From: Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
- Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 15:45:31 -0800
- To: Mark Little <mark.little@arjuna.com>
- CC: Jim Webber <Jim.Webber@newcastle.ac.uk>, "Vinoski, Stephen" <Steve.Vinoski@iona.com>, Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>, public-ws-addressing@w3.org
I did not see "mandatory" either. BTW, WSDL 2.0 defines a wsdlLocation attribute which can potentially be used. -Anish -- [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-wsdl20-20040803/#wsdlLocation-aii Mark Little wrote: > +1 > > I think making the WSDL contract mandatory in the EPR is too restrictive, > but I didn't read "mandatory" in Steve's original email. > > Mark. > > ---- > Mark Little, > Chief Architect, > Arjuna Technologies Ltd. > > www.arjuna.com > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jim Webber" <Jim.Webber@newcastle.ac.uk> > To: "Vinoski, Stephen" <Steve.Vinoski@iona.com>; "Doug Davis" > <dug@us.ibm.com> > Cc: <public-ws-addressing@w3.org> > Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 9:52 PM > Subject: RE: WS-Addr issues > > > >>Hey Steve, >> >> >>>While that's true, it doesn't help unless the contract >>>address is associated with the EPR such that having the EPR >>>can get you to the contract. >> >>Yes you're right - I'll be more explicit: I think it's OK to not have >>WSDL contract information embedded in an EPR provided that the WSDL >>contract can be obtained using the EPR (for example as part of a >>WS-MetaDataExchange message exchange). >> >>Jim >>-- >>http://jim.webber.name >> >> > > >
Received on Thursday, 4 November 2004 23:46:28 UTC