RE: Web Service Definition [Was "Some Thoughts ..."]

> 
> It seems that WSDL is the candidate for describing that 
> contrat and that
> unless necessary it should be the only mechanism.

OK, but if we *define* a "web service" as something that uses WSDL to define
the contract, a lot of people are going to be unhappy!  Also, there's the
matter that WSDL is merely an industry consortium proposal and the W3C
working group is just getting underway.

I could live with an architecture that says that WSDL is the *preferred*
contract language, but we are not discussing that yet, just trying to define
"web service."  This is probably a candidate for the Issues List.

> It would also be very useful to have a set of real world use cases of
> applications that would best be build on top of a service-oriented
> architecture.

I believe this was discussed on the call yesterday, and someone is going to
see if we can appropriate SOAP 1.2's use cases ... and maybe the WSDL
group's as well.  Should the definition reference use cases?  I don't think
so, but obviously the architecture should.
> 
>  should we have to care about how J2EE and 
> .NET will implement web services architecture (and get in the level of
reference
> sharing, distributed garbage collection, etc...)?

That sounds like the WS-I's mission in life, not ours.

Received on Friday, 22 February 2002 16:48:34 UTC