- From: Umit Yalcinalp <umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 09:25:10 -0700
- To: Jean-Jacques Moreau <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>
- CC: David Booth <dbooth@w3.org>, public-ws-desc-meps@w3.org, FABLET Youenn <youenn.fablet@crf.canon.fr>
Jean-Jacques Moreau 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. I don't think that we reached a conclusion or a specific stand on (3). Personally, my gut feeling is that the SOAP MEPs will be specific instances of a particular WSDL pattern and that is how we can establish the relationships between the two. That is what I tried to convey during the concall (but perhaps failed :-)). --umit > > > 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. > > -- Umit Yalcinalp Consulting Member of Technical Staff ORACLE Phone: +1 650 607 6154 Email: umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com
Received on Wednesday, 25 June 2003 12:27:31 UTC