RE: LC84b resolution

I understand and as I indicated I won't push this further.

Thanks
David Booth

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Marsh [mailto:jmarsh@microsoft.com] 
> Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 10:12 AM
> To: Booth, David (HP Software - Boston)
> Cc: public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org
> Subject: RE: LC84b resolution
> 
> 
> The WG discussed this some more, but did not reach consensus 
> to pursue moving @action from WS-A to core WSDL.  I believe 
> the timing and coordination overhead required to do this 
> contributed to making it unattractive to the WG.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) [mailto:dbooth@hp.com]
> > Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2005 5:10 AM
> > To: Jonathan Marsh
> > Cc: public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: LC84b resolution
> > 
> > Regarding LC84b, I really think that the inability to specify the 
> > action for each message represents a significant factoring 
> error.  WS 
> > Addressing provides a fine mechanism for doing this, but the 
> > capability belongs in WSDL natively: abstractly, there is hardly 
> > anything more fundamental to the definition of an interface 
> than the 
> > notion of what is intended to happen when a particular message is 
> > received.
> > 
> > Grouping messages into operations (via MEPs) is useful, but 
> in reality 
> > it is somewhat arbitrary, as the same sequence of messages could be 
> > grouped in multiple ways.  But when a message is sent from 
> one party 
> > to another, there is almost always some kind of intent, 
> whether it is 
> > explicitly stated or not.  Furthermore, if an action 
> attribute has a 
> > reasonable default value in WSDL, then its existence would place no 
> > burden on users that don't care about it.
> > 
> > Given that WS Addressing does fill the need for this, those who are 
> > using WS Addressing would have no reason to care that it 
> isn't in WSDL 
> > natively.  But since WSDL is such a fundamental building 
> block of the 
> > Web services stack of standards, and this seems so 
> fundamental to the 
> > notion of an abstract interface, I really think WSDL is where it 
> > belongs.
> > 
> > In summary, I will not ask the WG to reopen this, but I do 
> think it is 
> > a factoring error in the design of WSDL.
> > 
> > David Booth
> > 
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Jonathan Marsh [mailto:jmarsh@microsoft.com]
> > > Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2005 5:34 PM
> > > To: Booth, David (HP Software - Boston)
> > > Cc: public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org
> > > Subject: LC84a/b resolutions
> > >
> > >
> > > The remaining issues exposed in [1] have been resolved. Since the 
> > > Operation Name Mapping Feature has been removed from the 
> Core spec 
> > > (and is being generalized further in the Primer, we felt that the 
> > > remaining two issues LC84b [2] and LC84c [3] could be 
> closed with no 
> > > further action.  If we don't hear otherwise within two weeks, we 
> > > will assume this satisfies your concern.
> > >
> > > [1] http://www.w3.org/2004/Talks/1110-dbooth-opname/slide25-0.html
> > > [2] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC84b
> > > [3] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC84c
> > >
> > >
>

Received on Thursday, 28 July 2005 01:44:05 UTC