RE: Something else to consider

It seems to me that we are defining a set of attributes and a well
defined way to query/modify them without assuming the existence of
operations in WSDL, right? As a result, our goal is then to specify
well-defined messages that would instead express the same information as
if the operation(s) were to exist in WSDL. Not specifying the message
content would be unacceptable as it is an interoperability problem. 

 

It is vitally important to define the messages exchanged for
getting/setting the value of an attribute. Totally agree. If you see
Sanjiva's proposal in the main WSDL mailing list, you'll see that he
proposed an elegant way to remove the <message> element from WSDL.
Instead, the structure of a message is defined as a complex type. The
proposed syntax for a WSDL attribute is based on that proposal, with the
exception of @headers (I owe a reply to Jim about this).

 


I had the same question as William with respect to this syntax. If I
understood correctly, this approach favors defining get/setXX messages
per attribute basis. Unless there is a well defined message where
multiple attribute names can be referenced, it is not clear to me how a
general query can be expressed. This favors using an operation unless we
were to extend the attribute definitions to encapsulate both attributes
and query messages that can be expressed, something along the lines of 



 

As both Sanjiva and Jim suggested, it is not for the WSDL specification
to define operations for querying attributes. That's what the OGSI
specification should do if it is deemed necessary.

 



-- How is the complexType in the body of get/set element used? For
example, I would have expected the get message not to specify anything
as it is obvious from the structure that there is an attribute that it
is related to. Similarly, what are the body/element defns? 
I would not expect anything in the body of a message that corresponds to
this definition as it is clear from the defn which attribute that the
get message is for. 



-- The same question goes for the setter. Can a set message contain
information other than the value of the attribute? Again the
body/element defns appear to allow more than the traditional use of a
setter would allow. I would like to understand better. 



 

 

I would encourage you to read Sanjiva's proposal...

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Jul/0025.html

 

 

-- If the WSDL contains get/set operations, how would be distinguish
them based on the message content alone? 



 

That will be binding-specific.

 

.savas.