- From: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
- Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 13:24:55 -0700
- To: "David Booth" <dbooth@w3.org>, <public-ws-desc-meps@w3.org>
It seems obvious, to me at least, that there is quite a gulf between my position and the position other people are taking. I think that operations in WSDL should be abstract, defining ONLY the sequence, direction and cardinality of messages. All other details that are needed to 'make stuff actually work', like # of channels, sync vs async, timing, are defined at the binding level ( possibly with multiple levels of binding, if we end up supporting multi-level bindings ). The thing I find quite bizarre with the current MEP/IOP document is that given the WSDL below, both port types are exactly the same by the time you get to the binding level, but they are not compatible. I think this is very bad, because mep2b is essentially a subset of iop2, so it seems very strange that they are modelled as being completely separate. Cheers Gudge <w:definitions xmlns:w='http://www.w3.org/2003/03/wsdl' xmlns:tns='http://example.org/stuff' xmlns:ws='http://www.w3.org/2003/01/wsdl/soap12' targetNamespace='http://example.org/stuff' > <!-- Message definitions elided --> <w:portType name='Foo' > <w:operation name='op' pattern='mep2b' > <w:input message='msga' /> <w:output message='msgb' /> </w:operation> </w:portType> <w:portType name='Bar' > <w:operation name='op' pattern='iop2' > <w:input message='msga' /> <w:output message='msgb' /> </w:operation> </w:portType> <w:binding name='FooBind' type='tns:Foo' > <ws:binding transport='http://www.w3.org/2002/12/soap/bindings/HTTP/' /> <w:operation name='op'> <ws:operation style='document' /> <w:input> <ws:body /> </w:input> <w:output> <ws:body/> </w:output> </w:operation> </w:binding> <w:binding name='BarBind' type='tns:Bar' > <ws:binding transport='http://www.w3.org/2002/12/soap/bindings/HTTP/' /> <w:operation name='op'> <ws:operation style='document' /> <w:input> <ws:body /> </w:input> <w:output> <ws:body/> </w:output> </w:operation> </w:binding> </w:definitions> Gudge > > -----Original Message----- > From: public-ws-desc-meps-request@w3.org > [mailto:public-ws-desc-meps-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of David Booth > Sent: 14 April 2003 20:44 > To: public-ws-desc-meps@w3.org > > > Only Umit and I showed up at today's MEP teleconference. Amy > and Philippe gave regrets; others were AWOL. > > Umit and I discussed the clarified assumptions in > http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl12/meps-v > s-iops/meps-vs-iops_clean.htm > > At this point we really need Gudge on the call to ferret out > the remaining disagreements/misunderstandings, as others seem > to be pretty much in agreement. > > > -- > David Booth > W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard > Telephone: +1.617.253.1273 > > >
Received on Monday, 14 April 2003 16:25:31 UTC