- From: Jeffrey Schlimmer <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>
- Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 17:37:18 -0800
- To: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>, "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>
-1 WSDL needs to focus on describing messages received by / sent from a service. Any normative differences between an 'interactions/exchange' and 'interface/operation' would be a commitment to model. --Jeff > -----Original Message----- > From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On > Behalf Of Mark Baker > Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 8:21 AM > To: Jim Webber > Cc: 'Savas Parastatidis'; 'Anne Thomas Manes'; www-ws-desc@w3.org; > distobj@acm.org > Subject: Re: What does WSDL describe? > > > 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 20:42:39 UTC