W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > October 2003

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

From: <paul.downey@bt.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 14:09:29 +0100
Message-ID: <2B7789AAED12954AAD214AEAC13ACCEF0FFF1C8F@i2km02-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net>
To: <distobj@acm.org>
Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>


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.


-----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.

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:06:35 UTC