RE: Proposal: Uniqueness on the Wire Requirement for WSDL 2.0

Mark

I'd agree from the simplicity POV, *but* I like the idea of having an operation name which may be different to the messages passed on the wire

There are several advantages to this abstraction: the ability to rename an operation in WSDL without impacting the actual messages exchanged and the /possibility/ of being able to group messages into different MEPs under different operation names.

*but* that's less about describing the actual messages exchanged and more about presenting to a WSDL processor, which i freely admit could be wrong headed.

Paul

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org]
Sent: 21 October 2003 13:45
To: Downey,PS,Paul,XSJ67A C
Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Subject: Re: Proposal: Uniqueness on the Wire Requirement for WSDL 2.0


Hi Paul,

On Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 06:54:27AM -0400, paul.downey@bt.com wrote:
> 
> I'm guessing this additional rule is required for something not passing SOAP or even XML, e.g. REST ?

No, it would be used with both.  Any self-descriptive use of SOAP where
there's no operation in the SOAP envelope, would probably want to use
this rule.

Mark.

Received on Tuesday, 21 October 2003 09:09:31 UTC