Re: Follow up on output ops + MEPs

• From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
• Date: 20 Dec 2002 07:45:35 -0500
• To: Prasad Yendluri <pyendluri@webmethods.com>
• Cc: Don Mullen <donmullen@tibco.com>, FABLET Youenn <fablet@crf.canon.fr>, www-ws-desc@w3.org, Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
• Message-Id: <1040388334.31665.8.camel@lankabook>

On Thu, 2002-12-19 at 16:13, Prasad Yendluri wrote:
> Hi Sanjiva,
> 
> It seems you are proposing that we retain the <operation> construct of
> portType to define the Web service interface (in WSDL 1.1 way) esp.
> for input-output and input-only type operations and allow use of the
> new <interaction> construct for (these plus) other patterns? Kind of

Yes pretty much - that the <interaction> construct is a general
framework and that we have chosen to provide specific syntax for
certain common interaction patterns. I'd keep the current operation
syntax for input/output and input-only patterns only. If we do
some pub-sub thing then I'd introduce new syntax for that too. Same
for other forms of outbound ops we decide to define.

So any patterns we define we give custom syntax but provide 
their semantics in terms of the interaction pattern concept.

>  like the element/type option we have in messages? That seems like a
> reasonable approach to me, which also permits backward compatibility
> with WSDL 1.1 (in this area anyhow).  Also I take the "pattern" is the
> equivalent (or higher level) abstraction to MEPs. 

Yes.

Sanjiva.

Received on Friday, 20 December 2002 10:53:36 UTC