- From: Savas Parastatidis <Savas.Parastatidis@newcastle.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 00:03:41 +0100
- To: "VAMBENEPE,WILLIAM (HP-Cupertino,ex1)" <vbp@hp.com>, "Steve Graham" <sggraham@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: "David Snelling" <d.snelling@fle.fujitsu.com>, "Jim Webber" <jim.webber@arjuna.com>, <ksankar@cisco.com>, "Paul Watson" <Paul.Watson@newcastle.ac.uk>, <public-ws-desc-state@w3c.org>, "Steve Tuecke" <tuecke@mcs.anl.gov>, "Umit Yalcinalp" <umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com>
> > What I hear Savas say is "the interface should only contain the list of > attributes, not how to get them". This is different from "the information > on > how to get an attribute is not available in the WSDL document". Bindings > and > ports are part of the WSDL doc. I don't have a problem with this > information > being entirely in the binding. > Exactly! [snip] > > Savas, do you agree that bindings should provide this information and > that, > in the case of the SOAP over HTTP binding it means that the WSDL working > group would have to enrich the binding to tell people how to access > attributes defined in the interface? Or are you saying that this does not > belong in the "generic" bindings even but somewhere else altogether (but > then I ask why would binding be specific to operations and not > attributes?). The binding solution is not the panacea. It will allow us to do simple things, like get/set (even for multiple attributes at a time) but not find or partial lists. Hence, not all the requirements can be met, which is fine by me. I like the idea of treating attributes and operations in a similar way. .savas.
Received on Tuesday, 17 June 2003 19:04:12 UTC