- From: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
- Date: 30 Jun 2003 11:11:02 -0400
- To: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
- Cc: Savas Parastatidis <Savas.Parastatidis@newcastle.ac.uk>, public-ws-desc-state@w3.org, Jeff Mischkinsky <jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com>, Steve Graham <sggraham@us.ibm.com>
On Mon, 2003-06-30 at 00:03, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
> "Savas Parastatidis" <Savas.Parastatidis@newcastle.ac.uk> writes:
> >
> > That was exactly what I was trying to get across. WSDL is the IDL for
> > Web Services. With WSDL you can write interfaces as you can with IDL.
> > WSDL is not the place to specify specific operations.
> >
> > .savas.
>
> Sorry, I don't understand what you're saying.
>
> In IDL, if you say "attribute string foo" its simply another way
> of saying "string getFoo ()" and "void setFoo (string)".
Not exactly, this depends on the bindings in use. Java doesn't support
attributes in interfaces, so it will get translated into get/set. C#
will expose them as properties (with set{} throwing an exception for
readonly ones).
> Without such an approach, there's no way to implement a stub
> so that it knows what to do when someone wants to read the attribute.
>
> WSDL as the IDL for Web services should presumably support the same
> model for attributes: an attribute x in WSDL means that the service
> offers getx() and maybe setx() (if the attr is readonly).
... or an HTTP GET (and PUT if the attribute is not read-only).
Philippe
Received on Monday, 30 June 2003 11:11:09 UTC