- From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
- Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 23:37:10 +0600
- To: <public-ws-desc-state@w3.org>
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