- From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
- Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 17:05:31 +0600
- To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>, "Ricky Ho" <riho@cisco.com>
Hi Ricky, I agree that's a good place to cover it - what I was saying is that I don't think its this WG's scope to describe transactional properties, security properties etc.. Those are domain specific concepts that the domain experts must develop and embed within <binding> and such places. WSDL 1.2 will allow that thru its content model. IMO that's as far as we should go at this point. Bye, Sanjiva. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ricky Ho" <riho@cisco.com> To: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>; <www-ws-desc@w3.org> Sent: Sunday, September 08, 2002 11:26 PM Subject: Re: How to specify the operational requirement in bindings ? > > Do you think this is part of the "contract" between the client and server > provider ? I mean the client has to learn about these before they can > properly make their invocation request. If WSDL "Bindings" is to provide > the mapping from an abstract operation to what needs to go into the wire, > then it seems to a good place to cover this. Or, where else (in any WS??) > have we covered it ? > > Best regards, > Ricky > > At 05:19 PM 9/7/2002 +0600, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote: > >IMO this is out of scope for WSDL. This is basically a policy > >assertion about a Web service - undoubtedly a critical capability, > >but not in the domain of WSDL. > > > >Sanjiva. > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Ricky Ho" <riho@cisco.com> > >To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org> > >Sent: Saturday, September 07, 2002 3:02 AM > >Subject: How to specify the operational requirement in bindings ? > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > Regarding how a simple web services can be aggregated in complex real-life > > > scenario, any thoughts on how one can specify a certain operation of a > > > particular port type requires the caller to be authenticated and possess > > > certain security tokens ? Or how to specify if the operation has to be > > > called within an already established conversation (some sort of > >correlation > > > properties) ? Or how to specified if the operation has to be called > >within > > > a transaction (so the invoker has to pass in the "transaction context" and > > > a registration service so that the service provider can be enrolled in the > > > transaction as a participant) ? > > > > > > Best regards, > > > Ricky
Received on Monday, 9 September 2002 07:07:10 UTC