RE: Proposal: Uniqueness on the Wire Requirement for WSDL 2.0 from paul.downey@bt.com on 2003-10-21 (www-ws-desc@w3.org from October 2003)

From: <paul.downey@bt.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 12:02:48 +0100
To: <umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Message-ID: <2B7789AAED12954AAD214AEAC13ACCEF0FFF1C8E@i2km02-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net>

I see the rule of not re-using a message element across operations as essential for routing inbound literal documents to the appropriate operation.

The operation name still seems useful for identifying a group of messages as a single pattern.  

An abstract operation name offers the ability to hide the actual element names passed on the wire to provide a cohesive interface e.g. when combining existing  operations from several different services to form a super service.


-- 
Paul Sumner Downey
Web Services Integration
BT Exact




-----Original Message-----
From: Umit Yalcinalp [mailto:umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com]
Sent: 20 October 2003 23:26
To: WS Description List
Subject: Proposal: Uniqueness on the Wire Requirement for WSDL 2.0



[big snip]

Received on Tuesday, 21 October 2003 07:03:05 UTC