- From: Jeffrey Schlimmer <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 20:21:00 -0700
- To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
> Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote: > > Amelia A. Lewis wrote: > > > > I wasn't asked to supply justification for the outbound-first > > operations, which TIBCO *has* advocated, strongly. Microsoft also strongly advocates output-only and output-input. > > The disappearance of > > the old multicast solicit response is a result of changes in the > > definitions, such that the outbound-first operations are now, > > theoretically (apart from the trifling problem that fault replaces > > message is probably inappropriate), modeled by existing outbound-first > > patterns. > > I'm more confused. We still have the old solicit-response and > output-only patterns, at least as of the Sept. F2F! What's the > diff between what we have now and what was in WSDL 1.1? We now have abstract patterns that a particular binding will fully specify. When we gave examples in the past of how such patterns _might_ be used, you and others were concerned that variation in these usages was equivalent to being underspecified. The patterns are now precisely specified at a level of abstraction, leaving it to the binding to define a specific usage. The hypothetical TCP binding [1] defined a single, specific usage. If the WG takes on defining how the HTTP binding will use these patterns, which I hope it will, it too will define a specific usage. --Jeff [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Nov/0044.html
Received on Wednesday, 1 October 2003 23:21:24 UTC