- From: Glen Daniels <gdaniels@sonicsoftware.com>
- Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2003 13:47:53 -0500
- To: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, David Booth <dbooth@w3.org>, Anne Thomas Manes <anne@manes.net>, Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org, paul.downey@bt.com
+1, there is an implicit "processing model" which involves confirming that the particular set of stuff your processor wants to deal with in a WSDL document is correct. That means no dups, all "wsdl:required" extensions are understood, referred-to components exist, etc... I don't think it's required that all WSDL processors check the validity of stuff that they aren't dealing with (i.e. unused interfaces/bindings/etc). Of course since there's no implied API, we don't say anything about what you have to *do* once you reach a "success" or "fail" state... --Glen ----- Original Message ----- From: "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com> To: "David Booth" <dbooth@w3.org>; "Anne Thomas Manes" <anne@manes.net>; "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org> Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>; <paul.downey@bt.com> Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 1:38 PM Subject: RE: What WSDL defines - the diagram! I think the WSDL 2.0 spec does define certain things that a WSDL processor MUST do. For example, check that no duplicate definitions exist. Gudge > -----Original Message----- > From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org > [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of David Booth > Sent: 06 November 2003 06:51 > To: Anne Thomas Manes; Mark Baker > Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org; paul.downey@bt.com > Subject: Re: What WSDL defines - the diagram! > > > P.S. The greater significance of the diagram is not so much > in what it includes but what it omits. In particular, it > says nothing about what a WSDL *processor* must or must not do. > > There are different types of interoperability that we could > potentially strive to obtain with the WSDL 2.0 spec, which > I'll arbitrarily call: > > Type 1: Web Service & Client interop. This type of interop > is to ensure that the WS and client agree on the mechanics of > their interaction -- the message formats, data types, > transport, MEP, etc. (Of course, they still need to use > other means to ensure that they agree on the semantics and > other higher-level details of the interaction -- beyond what > WSDL covers.) > > Type 2: WSDL Processor interop. This type of interop would > ensure that different WSDL processors would have the same > behavior when presented with a given WSD. > > WSDL 2.0 pursues type 1: Web Service & Client interop. It > does not define what a WSDL processor must or must not do > with a given WSD. (And rightly so, in my opinion: what a > processor *does* with a given WSD is its own business -- not ours.) > > > At 01:10 PM 11/5/2003 -0500, David Booth wrote: > > >Mark & Anne, > > > >Certainly, a WSDL document does not *fully* define client or service > >behavior, but it does *partially* define their behavior. > That's what > >MEPs are all about. When a WSDL document specifies a > message exchange > >pattern, that pattern partially defines the behavior of the > interacting > >parties -- not their internal behavior, but their externally > observable > >behavior, i.e., what messages they send and receive and in > what sequence. > > > >The labels on the diagram were somewhat abbreviated, and omitted the > >word "partially". A clearer diagram is at > >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2003Nov/0002.html > > > > > >At 01:34 PM 11/4/2003 -0500, Anne Thomas Manes wrote: > > > >>+1. > >> > >>WSDL explicitly does not define client or service behaviour. It > >>describes syntax of messages and protocols used to exchange > those messages. > >> > >>Anne > >> > >>At 10:41 AM 11/4/2003, Mark Baker wrote: > >> > >>>Cool, thanks for tackling that at the f2f. > >>> > >>>But I disagree with the diagram. As it was explained to > me, a WSDL > >>>2.0 document could be said to "describe the syntax" of client and > >>>service ("schema in, schema out"), rather than "define the > >>>behaviour", which would require defining what in/out means in > >>>relation to any requested semantics (aka the protocol). > >>> > >>>WSDL 1.1 describes the protocol in that it suggests that a > successful > >>>response to a message means that the requested operation in the > >>>message was successfully invoked. WSDL 2.0 is ambiguous. > >>> > >>>Mark. > >>>-- > >>>Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. > http://www.markbaker.ca > > > >-- > >David Booth > >W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard > >Telephone: +1.617.253.1273 > > -- > David Booth > W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard > Telephone: +1.617.253.1273 > >
Received on Thursday, 6 November 2003 13:52:35 UTC