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

FWIW, I do not agree with the statement that "these mechanisms" make WSDL
like a C++ header file, nor do I share Jim's concern that this is a threat
to encouraging innappropriate "granularity".  Designers will choose
granularity to suit their problem needs and their personal design styles.
Designers will use WSDL 1.1, as it is, without "these mechanisms" to
produce both fine grained interactions and coarse grained interactions.

I do not support the notion of moving WSDL away from the "idl for web
services".

Lastly, the notion of using context to "rehydrate state" is appropriate for
SOME interactions, but not all.  When there is significantly sophisticated
state that we are modelling, such as commonly found in "systems management"
or "resource management" then using context to pass this around is NOT
appropriate.  Stateful entities and stateful interactions both are
legitimate approaches that we need to celebrate here.  Having only one
approach or the other is NOT acceptable for all approaches.

sgg

++++++++
Steve Graham
sggraham@us.ibm.com
(919)254-0615 (T/L 444)
STSM, On Demand Architecture
++++++++



                                                                                                                                              
                      "Jim Webber"                                                                                                            
                      <jim.webber@arjuna.com>         To:       "'David Snelling'" <d.snelling@fle.fujitsu.com>,                              
                      Sent by:                         <public-ws-desc-state@w3.org>                                                          
                      public-ws-desc-state-req        cc:                                                                                     
                      uest@w3.org                     Subject:  RE: attributes & WSDL (was: Re: attributes in CORBA IDL)                      
                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                              
                      07/10/2003 10:44 AM                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                              





David:

I worry that including these kind of mechanisms will turn WSDL into the XML
equivalent of C++ header files, and that as a result developers make bad
decisions about the granularity of service interactions.

If we move away from the idea of WSDL as an IDL, and think about WSDL as a
protocol description language then I believe that things like this
constant/static mechanism are unnecessary (since we use WSDL to describe
message format and binding, and not the interface of an agent per se).

In fact if we look at things this way, the notion of a stateful service
becomes much less the domain of the protocol description and much more a
feature of a particular deployed architecture. All the protocol description
would have to ensure is that the right contexts are passed around to ensure
that state can be rehydrated in response to the receipt of messages.

Jim

Received on Thursday, 17 July 2003 09:06:28 UTC