- From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
- Date: 21 Feb 2003 19:38:17 +0100
- To: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
- Cc: Jeffrey Schlimmer <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>, "Amelia A. Lewis" <alewis@tibco.com>, WS Description WG <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
On Fri, 2003-02-21 at 19:04, Martin Gudgin wrote:
> >
> > > Naming the MEPs something other than MEP1-7? I don't really mind. I
> > > would suggest we leave them as is because then they don't
> > accumulate
> > > any baggage due to people reading particular properties into a
> > > particular name.
> > >
> > > Naming the message references something other than 'A', 'B', 'C'? I
> > > guess we could, again I don't really see the benefit, they're just
> > > there to allow us to sequence things.
> >
> > Both mostly for simplicity and self-describability reasons.
> > How often do we see, for example, XML files with the elements
> > as below? 8-)
> > <el1>
> > <el2/>
> > <el3/>
> > </el1>
>
> I'm not sure these are the same kind of thing as element/attribute names
> in XML. These names really are just used for sequencing/disjunction.
> Perhaps they should be called 1, 2 and 3?
Even if we call them input, input-output, input-multiple-outputs etc. it
would be an improvement, IMHO. It would _look_ better and the names
would imply nothing more than the MEP descriptions imply.
> > > We agreed that WSDL describes things from the POV of the service.
> >
> > Either both parties can be considered a service in a
> > client/server relationship in at least some cases, or
> > output-first MEPs don't make sense. Or am I wrong?
>
> I do not understand your conclusion. I think output-first MEPs make
> sense from the POV of the service.
Is something a service if it only provides output-first operations?
If so, how exactly do you rule out clients from this?
If not, the spec should be clearer on this point.
>
> Gudge
Best regards,
Jacek Kopecky
Senior Architect, Systinet Corporation
http://www.systinet.com/
Received on Friday, 21 February 2003 13:38:25 UTC