Re: ISSUE : Extensible message exchange patterns

I'm at a loss here. While some vocabulary that defined
MEPs with angle-brackets might be a good thing(tm), it isn't
at all clear to me that it is needed. SOAP1.2 defines
MEPs and assigns URIs to these formal definitions. It also
recommends in the binding framework that MEPs be named
with a URI[1].

I think that rather than treat this through extensibility
in WSDL, that a binding identify the MEPs it supports
with a URI (or qname I suppose, but we may need to do some
coordination on that).

What am I missing?

Cheers,

Chris

Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
> I assume that you guys are cool with the arbitrary MEPs being
> defined using extensibility in WSDL; yes? If so +1.
> 
> If not this is a hard problem- basically you're asking for
> WSDL to become a meta-MEP language. I don't think that's a
> trivial problem to solve.
> 
> Sanjiva.
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jeffrey Schlimmer" <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>
> To: "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>; "Glen Daniels"
> <gdaniels@macromedia.com>
> Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
> Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 5:28 PM
> Subject: RE: ISSUE : Extensible message exchange patterns
> 
> 
> 
>>Jean-Jacques wrote:
>>
>>>I think it would be desirable that these other MEPs can be
>>>described in WSDL, otherwise there will be services out there
>>>that cannot be described (and hence used).  It would be desirable
>>>if these other MEPs can be described without us reopening the
>>>whole spec every time.
>>
>>+1
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Jean-Jacques Moreau [mailto:moreau@crf.canon.fr]
>>Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 1:32 AM
>>To: Glen Daniels
>>Cc: 'www-ws-desc@w3.org'
>>Subject: Re: ISSUE : Extensible message exchange patterns
>>
>>
>>+1 to Glen.
>>
>>BTW Glen, you may not have read [1].
>>
>>Jean-Jacques.
>>
>>[1]
>>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002May/0227.html
> 
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 6 June 2002 10:41:46 UTC