- From: Savas Parastatidis <Savas.Parastatidis@newcastle.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 15:19:40 +0100
- To: "WS Description List" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Mike and Jim, > > As you point out, it presumably does something (though we can't be sure > about that). However the fact that a service probably does something with > 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 apply > "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 :-) Regards, .savas. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Jan/att-0005/interac tion-patterns-jan-13-2003.html
Received on Tuesday, 16 September 2003 10:20:45 UTC