- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 11:20:53 -0500
- To: Jim Webber <jim.webber@arjuna.com>
- Cc: "'Savas Parastatidis'" <Savas.Parastatidis@newcastle.ac.uk>, "'Anne Thomas Manes'" <anne@manes.net>, www-ws-desc@w3.org, distobj@acm.org
On Tue, Oct 28, 2003 at 04:10:09PM -0000, Jim Webber wrote: > Savas: > > > <interactions> > > <exchange> > > <input message="" /> > > </exchange> > > <exchange> > > <input message="" /> > > <output message="" /> > > </exchange> > > <interactions> > > > > Yet something else to consider :-) > > I like it. It is short (Anne's concern), and captures what a service does > (exchanges messages). It is unambiguous too since it does not imply any > semantics like certain other keywords do :-) What about supporting both "operation" and "exchange", as they mean different things, and it seems that folks want both. "exchange", as I understand what Savas means by it, would be used for what I call "state transfer". But when there is an operation in effect, "operation" would be used. This would mostly address my issue, in fact, as by using one or the other, a WSDL document would be resolving the previous ambiguity I discussed. Mark. -- Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca
Received on Tuesday, 28 October 2003 11:20:23 UTC