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

I believe that the properties/features support in WSDL is adequate to
describe requirements for headers/modules/extensions, in a completely
interoperable, standardized way.  An external policy language would be
icing.

Amy!
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 12:07:14 -0400
Anne Thomas Manes <anne@manes.net> wrote:

> 
> 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.
> 
> Anne
> 
> At 01:36 PM 10/23/2003, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
> ><snip>
> >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.
> >
> >Sanjiva.
> 
> 
> 


-- 
Amelia A. Lewis
Architect, TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc.
alewis@tibco.com

Received on Monday, 27 October 2003 10:18:43 UTC