- From: Glen Daniels <gdaniels@sonicsoftware.com>
- Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 14:44:29 -0500
- To: <public-ws-async-tf@w3.org>
Hi folks: On last week's async TF call, we discussed a number of questions which the TF will need to answer. I mentioned that I thought the "high order bit" here was related to the granularity of WSDL bindings for operations. As Kevin points out in [1], binding different operations in an interface is an important and interesting use-case to consider, and in fact that's very similar to what I was talking about, except I wanted to specifically discuss the level of operation messages. I'm wondering if it's OK for us to bind the different messages (inputs, outputs, faults) inside a given operation in different ways - and even to leave the actual bindings for some of these messages "floating", to be resolved at runtime. An example might look something like this (syntax is not meant as a real proposal, and I'm explicitly NOT dealing with things like SOAP in one direction and plain HTTP in the other, so the difference is at the SOAP underlying protocol level, not the WSDL binding level): <interface name="store"> <operation name="buySomething"> <input element="tns:PO"/> <output element="tns:Invoice"/> </operation> </interface> <binding interface="tns:store" type="wsdl:soap"> <!-- this lets protocol be defined by each msg --> <soap:enableMultiProtocol/> <operation name="buySomething"> <input> <!-- input gets sent via HTTP --> <protocol>http</protocol> <output> <!-- no <protocol> here, so it's left "unbound" --> <!-- These are the options for someone sending me a ReplyTo... --> <availableProtocols>http,smtp</availableProtocols> </operation> </binding> This is something a little like Kevin's option 4. The point is to ask if we all agree, however we actually acheive it, that WSDL needs to support patterns like this - a request/response operation where the request and the response might be sent along completely different transport paths (and in fact where the response transport path might be unknown at WSDL time). What do you think? --Glen [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-async-tf/2005Feb/0022.html
Received on Tuesday, 8 February 2005 19:44:44 UTC