- From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@systinet.com>
- Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 14:52:13 +0200
- To: Jim Webber <jim.webber@arjuna.com>
- Cc: 'WS Description List' <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Jim, please see below. On Tue, 2003-09-16 at 17:48, Jim Webber wrote: > No. Services are entites which exchange messages, period. Web Services are > characterised by the exchange of structured documents described with XML > Schema (normally). WSDL is a means of describing those documents and how > they will be exchanged between a single client/requester/consumer (or insert > today's WSA term here) and a service (similarly, insert today's WSA term > here). In your model, do you need message exchange patterns? I think the point of message exchange patterns is that they are greater than just the sum of the messages comprising them. What is the difference in value of an MEP and the sum of the messages? The difference is in some additional semantics. For example in an input-output MEP, the additional semantics is that "something happens as a result of receiving the input, which in turns results in producing the output". I don't want to lose this "something that happens". That exactly is an operation. If we only have messageExchanges with no semantics to them apart from the message exchange, we don't need MEPs and can only have two kinds of messageExchanges - one way there and one way back. Even if we don't go there but still only have messageExchanges with no additional semantics, it is conceivable that two today's operations could collapse into one messageExchange because they have the same inputs and the same outputs and only differ in semantics. Say int sum(int[]); int product(int[]). I'm for keeping operations. I think services aren't there to exchange messages, they are there to *serve*, and if message exchange is necessary for that (as it usually is), it ought to be specified in the container that identifies (not defines, though) the particular serving operation that the service is capable of. Best regards, Jacek Kopecky Senior Architect Systinet Corporation http://www.systinet.com/
Received on Wednesday, 17 September 2003 08:52:24 UTC