attributes & WSDL (was: Re: attributes in CORBA IDL)

OK, so this discussion is interesting, but I'm not sure whether
there's a hint of agreement or not. Let me try summarizing:

- add an "attribute" construct to wsdl:interface with semantics
  as in OMG IDL's attributes
- leave out specific functions like findAttributes() and queryAttrs()
  as out of scope for WSDL
- grid guys can define those functions in their base interface

Is that an accurate statement of where this discussion seems to
be saying?

Sanjiva.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Savas Parastatidis" <Savas.Parastatidis@newcastle.ac.uk>
To: "Jeff Mischkinsky" <jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com>; "Philippe Le Hegaret"
<plh@w3.org>; "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Cc: <public-ws-desc-state@w3.org>; "Steve Graham" <sggraham@us.ibm.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 10:20 PM
Subject: RE: attributes in CORBA IDL


>
> Jeff,
> [snip]
>
> >
> > I don't if this is relevant, but there IS a set of mandated operations
> on
> > all CORBA objects, those that are inherited from the base
> CORBA::Object
> > type. (Technically although the signatures are expressed in IDL, each
> > language mapping defines how they are materialized in that language.)
> >
> > interface Object {
> >       InterfaceDef get_interface ();
> >       boolean is_nil();
> >       Object duplicate ();
> >       void release ();
> >       boolean is_a ( in RepositoryId logical_type_id );
> >       boolean non_existent();
> >       boolean is_equivalent ( in Object other_object );
> >       unsigned long hash( in unsigned long maximum );
> >       void create_request ( .... [ parms snipped ] );
> >       Policy get_policy ( in PolicyType policy_type );
> >       DomainManagersList get_domain_managers ();
> >       Object set_policy_overrides(
> >           in PolicyList policies,
> >           in SetOverrideType set_add
> >           ) raises (InvalidPolicies);
> >       Policy get_client_policy( in PolicyType type );
> >       PolicyList get_policy_overrides( in PolicyTypeSeq types );
> >       boolean validate_connection( out PolicyList
> inconsistent_policies );
> >       Object get_component ();
> >      };
> > };
> >
> >    So for example you can invoke a get_interface() operation which
> returns
> > the metadata describing the inteface on all object references.
>
> I agree that this is the case. However, this is part of the CORBA
> specification and NOT of the IDL specification. It has been my case all
> along in this mailing list that interface and behavioural
> requirements/semantics should be defined by other specifications and NOT
> by the WSDL specification. The WSDL specification should just provide
> you with the means to write such specifications.
>
> WSDL is not the specification to define an object-based component model.
> That's the responsibility of the CORBA and DCOM specifications. It seems
> that the OGSI people want to define a similar component model for web
> services. Despite the fact that I disagree with the approach taken by
> OGSI, I am confident that WSDL is not the place to do that.
>
> .savas.
>

Received on Tuesday, 1 July 2003 13:37:18 UTC