RE: WSDL 2: HTTP input, output, fault serialization in the wrong place

Thanks for your comment.  The WS Description Working Group tracked this
as a Last Call comment LC332 [1].  The Working Group was unable to agree
to adopt your proposal at this stage of our development.  Though some
members applaud your suggestion as a superior design, the majority felt
that the status quo was sufficient.

If we don't hear otherwise within two weeks, we will assume this
satisfies your concern.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: [mailto:public-ws-desc-
>] On Behalf Of Jacek Kopecky
> Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 12:07 PM
> To:
> Subject: WSDL 2: HTTP input, output, fault serialization in the wrong
> place
> Hi all,
> a last call comment on the 2005 last call draft of the adjuncts:
> Section 6.6.2 in adjuncts defines {http input serialization}, {http
> output serialization} and {http fault serialization} to describe the
> content type of the messages. It does so on the binding operation
> component level. I believe the binding message reference and binding
> fault reference components would be a better place for these
> properties;
> and the current places could be dropped or they could carry defaults.
> So instead of
> <binding ...>
>   <operation ... whttp:outputSerialization="image/jpeg" />
> </binding>
> we'd have
> <binding ...>
>   <operation ... >
>     <output whttp:serialization="image/jpeg" />
>   </operation>
> </binding>
> This would allow us to define different serializations for different
> output messages (or different input messages or different faults).
> Granted, none of our MEPs have multiple input messages or multiple
> output messages, but there can always be multiple faults.
> It doesn't seem to me that the current limitation to a single
> serialization format for all inputs, other for all outputs and yet
> another for all faults, is in any way useful. In fact, to me it seems
> fairly strange.
> Hope it makes sense,
> Jacek Kopecky

Received on Wednesday, 5 October 2005 20:48:50 UTC