Re: Safety and WSDL

On Sat, Feb 14, 2004 at 08:11:41PM -0800, David Orchard wrote:
> Safety hits the 80/20 mark for a few things:
> - Can a client use a "safe" method as a poor man's ping?  "getStatus" is a
> great example of this.

Ok, granted.

> - Can a client retry a "safe" method in the absence of any choreography
> language?
> - What obligations does a client incur upon invocation of said method, in
> particular "safe" means they have a minimal semantic understanding.

I don't think so, as I tried to explain.  If you don't know what the
method means, you're not going to invoke it, even if it's safe ...
except perhaps for "ping", as you mention.

I believe that safety should be defined wherever the method semantics
are defined, and that ain't the WSDL.

Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.

Received on Saturday, 14 February 2004 23:47:21 UTC