RE: issue: remove solicit-response and output-only operations?

Sanjiva,

For representing Rosettanet PIPs we need solicit-response operations.
e.g. PIP3A4 - is a PurchaseOrderRequest ans PurchaseOrderConfirmation
scenario between the buyer and the seller.

buyer: 
            <operation name="submitPO">
			<output message="PORequest"/>
			<input message="POResponse"/>
		</operation>

and corresponding seller:
		<operation name="processPO">
			<input message="PORequest"/>
			<output message="POResponse"/>
		</operation>

So unless we have some first-class description of an event mechanism in
place, I suggest we leave the "solicit-response" and "output-only" as is in
WSDL1.2.


-Pallavi


-----Original Message-----
From: Sanjiva Weerawarana [mailto:sanjiva@watson.ibm.com]
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2002 9:14 PM
To: www-ws-desc@w3c.org
Subject: issue: remove solicit-response and output-only operations?


The WG would like to solicit your comments on whether we should
eliminate WSDL 1.1's "solicit-response" and "output-only" 
operations as we produce WSDL 1.2. 

Here are the two issues from the latest part1 document. Note that
I have posted these together as the decisions obviously need to
be coupled.

  <issue id="issue-remove-solicit-response-operations" status="open">
    <head>Should we remove solicit-response operations?</head>
    Solicit-response operations are not fully defined in WSDL
    1.1. There are multiple interpretations of these in the community:
    event, callback etc.. Also, there is little evidence that anyone
    is actually using them.  We could consider replacing this with
    a first-class description of an event mechanism.
    <source>Sanjiva Weerawarana</source>
  </issue>

  <issue id="issue-remove-notification-operations" status="open">
    <head>Should we remove notification operations?</head>
    Notification operations are also not fully defined in WSDL
    1.1. There are multiple interpretations of these in the community:
    event, callback etc.. Also, there is little evidence that anyone
    is actually using them. We could consider replacing this with
    a first-class description of an event mechanism.
    <source>Sanjiva Weerawarana</source>
  </issue>

Thanks,

Sanjiva.

Received on Monday, 15 April 2002 20:19:05 UTC