Re: PROPOSAL: Drop interface/operation/(input|output)/@headers

I don't think it's appropriate to leave the description of headers to "the 
domain of policies" until there is a formal effort to define a policy 
language. If we drop header descriptions from the core language, then at 
the least I think we need to define a feature that provides a mechanism to 
describe them. At least until such time as there is a formal policy language.


At 01:36 PM 10/23/2003, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
>In our internal discussions, we've concluded that even when
>applications do introduce headers, that is done as a result of
>some policy being applied. Thus, just having a mechanism to
>declare a header isn't enough - one has to say what the
>lifecycle of that header is, what scope it has (not share
>across operations, shared across some ops, shared across all
>ops etc.).
>In other words, the mechanism in the current draft is woefully
>inadequate to describe headers. Extending the functionality is
>an option, but I don't think that's a path the WG will like to
>go on because it'll dramatically complicate WSDL for everyone.
>[Tom, where are you? ;-)]
>Hence our proposal that headers be dropped and left in the
>domain of policies to introduce and describe the semantics /
>lifecycle of.
>My apologies for the delay in replying.

Received on Saturday, 25 October 2003 12:07:24 UTC