W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > February 2003

Re: MEP proposal

From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
Date: 21 Feb 2003 16:41:36 +0100
To: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, Jeffrey Schlimmer <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>, "Amelia A. Lewis" <alewis@tibco.com>
Cc: WS Description WG <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1045842096.6495.50.camel@krava.in.idoox.com>

Amy, Gudge, Jeff,

I think it's the good direction. I do have comments/questions:

The MEPs say nothing about where the 'in' messages come from or where
the 'out' messages go to, which may be confusing. Although I first
thought it's OK, the MEP8 below suggests otherwise. Without the comments
specifying the sources/destinations, the MEP would be extremely abstract
and confusing.

Why does a fault reference refer to possibly multiple messages? Why is
this not similar to normal message references? What does it mean if a
fault reference 'C' refers to messages 'M1' and 'M2'?

Will MEPs and message references in the MEPs document be named in any
more sensible way? (I believe naming was just put off 'till later - a
good idea there.)

Who will specify (and where will that be) the relationships between SOAP
MEPs, possible abstract MEPs (if anyone comes up with such beasts) and
WSDL MEPs? For example, SOAP Request/Response maps to MEP2, SOAP
Response maps either to MEP4 or MEP2, and a potential SOAP Req/Resp MEP
involving one intermediary would map to two WSDL MEPs - MEP2 for the
service and MEP8 (below) for the intermediary. And that's not
considering describing the client in a WSDL. 8-)

MEP8: exactly two or four messages:
  1) an in message A        // coming from client
  2) optionally
    i) an out message B     // going to service
   ii) one of the following 
      x) an in message C    // coming from service
      y) an in fault D      // coming from service
  3) one of the following
    i) an out message E     // going to client
   ii) an out fault F       // going to client

(just a fast-and-dirty hack of an MEP)

The comments above (after //s) might be put in a note below the text of
the MEP as the expected usage, or something.

I guess that's all of it. No flames, I must be having a bad day. 8-)

Best regards,

                   Jacek Kopecky

                   Senior Architect, Systinet Corporation

On Thu, 2003-02-20 at 18:11, Martin Gudgin wrote:
> We agreed at the Scottsdale FTF to incorporate MEPs into our design.
> Amy, Jeff and I have done some work on this. Proposed changes to part 1
> are detailed in[1,2] using diff markup. Proposed definitions for the 7
> MEPs we decided to define are at[3,4].
> Comments, suggestions, flames etc. to the usual address.
> Gudge
> [1]
> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl12/wsdl12.xml?rev=1
> .46.2.3&content-type=text/xml
> [2]
> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl12/wsdl12.html?rev=
> [3]
> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl12/wsdl12-meps.xml?
> rev=1.6&content-type=text/xml
> [4]
> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl12/wsdl12-meps.html
> ?rev=1.1&content-type=text/html
Received on Friday, 21 February 2003 10:41:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:06:28 UTC