Re: SOAP pattenrs vs. WSDL patterns (was: Minutes from MEP Task Force 23 June 2003)

I don't think that we reached a conclusion.  Not this one, at any rate.

We can't mandate SOAP MEPs only at the binding level, if we plan to
support bindings other than SOAP.  Can we?

Amy!
On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 14:05:55 +0200
"Jean-Jacques Moreau" <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr> wrote:

> 
>  From the minutes, I am not entirely sure what conclusion you reached.
>  
> Would it be fair to summarize the TF's position as follows? (I
> apologize in advance if my summary misrepresent the TF's position.)
> 
> 1) At the interface level, we will use WSDL patterns.
> 
> 2) At the binding level, we will use SOAP MEPs.
> 
> 3) We will not indicate the relationship between the two.
> 
> I'm fine with 1) and 2); I feel we will need to be a little more 
> explicit about 3). For example, does the choice of a WSDL pattern 
> restrict the set of possible SOAP MEPs?
> 
> Again, apologies if my characterization of the TF's position was not 
> accurate.
> 
> Jean-Jacques.
> 
> David Booth wrote:
> >       SOAP patterns vs. WSDL patterns.
> > 
> > <*dbooth*> See Youenn's message: 
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-desc-meps/2003Jun/0024.html
> > 
> > *David:* Any wisdom to share?
> > 
> > *Amy:* In Scottsdale we decided to make WSDL patterns operate at a
> > more fundamental conceptual level than SOAP MEPS.
> > ... Some discussion whether we should ask SOAP to define their
> > patterns in terms of ours.
> > ... Decided "no". They weren't going to change.
> > ... Doesn't change the fact that SOAP patterns are more explicit
> > than ours.... No attempt to discriminate on our part between HTTP 
> > request-response, an HTTP get followed by a SOAP response, and a
> > SOAP request-response.
> > ... XMLP has defined two of these.
> > ... In WSDL we also are dealing with pure HTTP request-response.
> > ... I don't see that we have a significant win in distinguishing
> > those cases.
> > ... Do we need to identify SOAP categories of request-response?
> > ... Can we leave this totally to the binding?
> > 
> > *Scribe:* David, Umit: Leave to binding.
> > 
> > *Amy:* There's a certain amount of SOAP r-r that we won't model
> > outside the binding.
> > 
> > *Umit:* Does it matter to the client? No.
> > 
> > *Amy:* We don't need to make as many distinctions as SOAP r-r
> > patterns, right?
> > 
> > *Scribe:* David, Umit: Sounds like the case.
> > 
> > *David:* Still useful to show correspondence between our patterns
> > and XMLPs.
> > 
> > *Amy:* Yes, at some point we end up with a pattern (p3) which maps
> > to both SOAP MEPs.
> > 
> > *Umit:* Equivalencies.
> > 
> > *David:* Specializations.
> > 
> > *Umit:* If they map to p3 doesn't that mean two equivalent 
> > implementations of the pattern?
> > ... Actually a concretization of the pattern in three different
> > ways.... When we have a leaf node in our lattice, there may be a
> > specific binding that describes that pattern.
> > 
> > *David:* Specific binding is not an actual sequence of messages. A 
> > sequence of messages conforms to the binding, or not.
> > ... If it conforms to the binding, it conforms to the pattern.
> > 
> > *Amy:* Can we say we might need some specialized terminology and
> > move on?
> > 
> > *Scribe:* (scribe missing some chunks here)
> > 
> > *Umit:* As long as the client has a specific pattern it adheres to,
> > how it relates to XMLP work doesn't matter.
> > 
> > *David:* We will need to identify the link between our specific
> > patterns and SOAP's.
> > 
> > <*dbooth*> JM: It would be good of people writing new SOAP specs
> > would reference our MEPs.
> 
> 


-- 
Amelia A. Lewis
Architect, TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc.
alewis@tibco.com

Received on Wednesday, 25 June 2003 10:32:51 UTC