- From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
- Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 15:50:06 +0200 (CEST)
- To: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
- cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org, Glen Daniels <gdaniels@macromedia.com>
Jean-Jacques,
IMO in WSDL the term MEP is a bit different from SOAP MEP. The
difference is that in SOAP an MEP may span multiple nodes and is
defined from the point of view of a message, whereas WSDL
describes one node and all MEPs used in WSDL must be defined from
the point of view of that one described node.
In WSDL, other MEPs than one-way and request/response should
IMHO be viewed as orchestration, out of scope of WSDL. Therefore
we can hardcode these two.
Best regards,
Jacek Kopecky
Senior Architect, Systinet Corporation
http://www.systinet.com/
On Fri, 24 May 2002, Jean-Jacques Moreau wrote:
> I was not able to attend yesterday, and I apologize in advance if
> I am reiterating a discussion that has occured already, but I
> wanted to point out that I agree with Glen and that, if possible,
> MEPs should not be hardcoded into the spec.
>
> Specifically, SOAP 1.2 currently defines one MEP. It is expected
> that specification for other MEPs will be produced in the future.
> 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.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Jean-Jacques.
>
Received on Tuesday, 28 May 2002 09:50:16 UTC