Re: On WSDL "operation"

Savas Parastatidis wrote:

>And here are some more thoughts on the naming of the "operation" element
>in WSDL...
>We believe that the term "operation" gives the wrong impression about
>the semantics of a Web service, and has lead to much confusion and
>malpractice in the developer community where WSDL portTypes (now
>interfaces) have been wrongly equated to interfaces of implementing
>objects. Since a Web Service sends and receives messages, we propose
>that a Web service interface consists of "messageExchange" elements
>rather than "operations". 
>   <messageExchange>
>      <input message="..."/>
>      <output message="..."/>
>      <fault message="..."/>
>   </messageExchange>
>Furthermore, we would ask that any language concerning "interface
>inheritance" is changed to more accurately reflect that WSDL 1.2 allows
>interfaces to be aggregated. This again removes any unintentional
>linkage to objects and typed interfaces.
As I am trying to recover my email overload after my vacation, I noticed 
that you are making the same observation that we proposed during the 
discussions pertaining to removing message. At the time, I was partially 
sarcastic (See [1]) but given that message construct is removed from the 
specification, we are in violent agreement, at least about appropriate 
naming of the concept being represented.

We think that the term operation gives the wrong impression too. 
However, the confusion is not about the "implementation" techniques of 
web services or about OO, but simply about appropriate naming of what is 
being represented. The thing that is currently labelled as an operation 
is intended to represent a message exchange. A message exchange could 
also indicate an rpc like operation, but the concept being represented 
here in general is message exchange.
+1 from Oracle.




Umit Yalcinalp                                  
Consulting Member of Technical Staff
Phone: +1 650 607 6154                          

Received on Monday, 15 September 2003 19:21:48 UTC