W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > May 2002

Re: Final one for me RE: Issue: Should Operations permit alternate and multiple responses

From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 06:22:28 +0600
Message-ID: <023f01c1f238$9f0acca0$17aa7cca@lankabook2>
To: "Dale Moberg" <dmoberg@cyclonecommerce.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Hi Dale,

I'm not sure I understand what your proposal. Can you please
make a concrete proposal on how to change WSDL to make
OUT operations useable?



----- Original Message -----
From: "Dale Moberg" <dmoberg@cyclonecommerce.com>
To: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>; <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 12:04 AM
Subject: Final one for me RE: Issue: Should Operations permit alternate and
multiple responses

> Hi,
> Despite your instruction to shelve the discussion, I think
> it is worth at least one more clarification because
> you have misrepresented my response to your question.
> This refers to the following snippet:
> >> Sanjiva> The problem with using an OUT operation to do that is
> >> that its not clear where the OUT is targetted to.
> >> Well, that info could be part of a binding for the
> >> actual implemented interfaces. It can be equally well said
> >> that the problem with an IN operation is that it is not
> >> clear who is targeting it. These interfaces are to be abstracted
> >> from some "bits on the wire" details, right?
> Sanjiva> No, the target of the OUT operation cannot be in the binding;
> if
> >so its a fixed target that can never change! If OUTs are like
> >events then one needs a subscription mechanism to register the
> >listeners etc.. So what I'm proposing is dropping the OUT operations
> >and adding first class support for events (and whatever else OUT
> >oriented stuff we find interesting).
> First, I was not saying that the current value under wsdl:port be
> taken as a target for an OUT operation. That makes no sense.
> The URL(s) that are needed for configuring the communications
> machinery for the OUT operation are obtained by some
> not yet specified (by wsdl) process. [ I might add that your
> objection about creating hard links also applies, probably harmlessly,
> to the inclusion of values for wsdl:port.]
> As far as how to enhance/alter WSDL to provide better support
> for OUT operations, I think that re-using or oveloading wsdl:port
> and its URL would just be too confusing to bother with.
> What might replace it, is a separate
> chunk of information, wsdl:registration, containing either
> 1. a reference to a service registration interface (IN flavor)
> (in WSDL naturally)
> or
> 2. a format for an interface with a datatype of anyURI,
> and a URL, that would allow you to subscribe to the service
> or
> 3. something else that actually allows configuration of the
> service.
> Maybe that is what your event stuff would do. If
> so, I look forward to seeing it.
Received on Thursday, 2 May 2002 20:25:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:06:22 UTC