- From: Vinoski, Stephen <Steve.Vinoski@iona.com>
- Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 15:59:34 -0500
- To: <paul.downey@bt.com>
- Cc: <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
paul.downey@bt.com wrote: > i personally don't like the idea of sending WSDL information > in an EPR, > it seems to me that a WSDL is good way to describe messages being > exchanged on the wire, but tying the messages themselves to a > particular description is limiting. Not sure I follow, Paul. First, the EPR already allows WSDL information to optionally appear -- it's been in the specification all along. Second, nobody is forcing you use WSDL information in your EPRs -- the metadata section, and all the WSDL that can appear within it, are optional. > Given i may elect to describe an individual message exchange in any > one of a number of WSDLs each with their own abstract interface > name, sentences like "it MUST match *the* WSDL 2.0 interface > name ...." > trouble me somewhat. The [selected interface] property is already a part of the spec. If you choose to use it together with a WSDL 2.0 [service] property in an EPR, and noting that a WSDL 2.0 service element can hold only a single interface name, then how could it make any sense whatsoever for the two interface names not to match? --steve
Received on Monday, 7 February 2005 20:59:39 UTC