RE: On WSDL "operation"

Mike and Jim,
> As you point out, it presumably does something (though we can't be
> about that). However the fact that a service probably does something
> that message is not important at this level. What is important is
> describing
> the messages going in and coming out and describing that. Trying to
> "invocation" semantics to this violates encapsulation, and encourages
> developers to view services as invokable objects rather than entities
> which
> merely exchange messages.
> So I'll stand by "messageExchange."

I agree with Jim on this one.

Although I still prefer "messageExchange", another word that could be
used is "interaction". I did a quick search in the archives and I found
that Sanjiva used this term in a January message [1]. Just something
else to consider :-)



Received on Tuesday, 16 September 2003 10:20:45 UTC