Re: Issue: Should Operations permit alternate and multiple responses

I agree that WSDL 1.1 already has slipped down the slope a bit.
The rationale was that the cases of sending a message, and that
of sending and receiving a message were pretty much fundamental
and justified special syntax. The output-only and solicit-response
were just the flips of those.

I find it hard to accept that one message in and two out is such
a fundamental pattern.

I'm not sure what side you're supporting Dale: Do you want WSDL
to have special syntax for supporting such patterns or to leave
that out of scope? My preference is the latter.

Prasad: Since you raised this, do you still want this inserted
as an issue? If so I will and we can discuss it later if you wish.

Sanjiva.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dale Moberg" <dmoberg@cyclonecommerce.com>
To: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>; <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 10:52 PM
Subject: RE: Issue: Should Operations permit alternate and multiple
responses


>
> Sanjiva writes:
>
> "I think this is a slippery slope .. clearly there are many message
> exchange patterns in life. WSDL 1.1 picks a few "standard" ones
> for direct syntactic support and leaves others upto richer
> languages like orchestration languages.
>
> "Adding support for multiple and optional outputs can be done with
> allowing messages to be defined in terms of messages too. Again,
> that's another slippery slope ... where does WSDL end and orchestration
> start?"
>
> At the face-to-face meeting, several people emphasized their
> desire to have a clean demarcation between WSDL interface
> definitions and bindings and also a clear line between the
> the WSDL interface definitions and choreography notations.
>
> I think the blurring of the boundaries (or the beginning of the
> slope) for the choreography/interface topic begins with the current
> terminology of operations--one-way-, request-response-,solicit-response,
> and notification-operation. These are just groups of various
> combinations of wsdl:input, wsdl:output, and wsdl:fault, and
> the particular semantic flavor of the current group names,
> suggest that interface definitions are being defined
> reflecting semantic peculiarities from the viewpoint
> of the invoking environment (that is, semantic wisps of
> some choreography). But no one knows how large the list
> of semantic primitives for these choreography types really
> is or even what among them will be needed eventually.
>
> If terms like "InOut," "In" "Out" (and "OutIn" I guess) had
> been used instead, no one would be tempted to say that we were
> trafficing in cryptic choreography semantics. In addition,
> we could be noncommittal about just which semantic choreography
> primitives are needed, how they work, what they mean, and
> how many have to be documented by the release of 1.2. As
> interface types, "InOut" and so on, seem pretty familiar
> from IDL specifications already, and people would expect
> what they actually get.

Received on Monday, 29 April 2002 15:43:18 UTC