- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 00:30:53 -0500
- To: Jeffrey Schlimmer <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>
- Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
On Fri, Jan 24, 2003 at 11:33:05AM -0800, Jeffrey Schlimmer wrote: > Mark, thanks for the additional explanation. FYI, the WG hasn't really > begun to work on bindings with any significant earnest; when we do, your > post below will undoubtedly be quite helpful. Thanks Jeffrey, but just to clarify, despite the impact of my proposal on how application protocol bindings would be defined, the bulk of the proposal targets the framework in which bindings are constructed (i.e. the binding component). If that's what you meant by "work on bindings", then nevermind. 8-) Otherwise, I think it's something that the group would do well to address long before it starts working on bindings. BTW, upon further reading of the draft, I think some of the prose would need changing too. In particular; "A binding component describes[sic] a concrete binding of a port type component and associated operations to a particular concrete message format and transmission protocol." -- http://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl12/#Binding_details I gave some thought to how that could be modified to reflect the changes in my proposal, but I couldn't come up with anything simple. I think this stems from the fact that an application protocol defines the equivalent of a WSDL port type. I hope you'd agree that this raises some significant architectural issues for WSDL 1.2. Cheers, MB -- Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca Web architecture consulting, technical reports, evaluation & analysis
Received on Sunday, 26 January 2003 00:29:22 UTC