Re: On WSDL "operation"

"Jim Webber" <> writes:
> So in short:
> 1. Web Services exchange messages.


> 2. WSDL describes those messages (and perhaps how they might be
> This includes both abstract and concrete forms of those messages.

Yes. Plus, with WSDL 1.2, when the messages are carried over SOAP
abstract and concrete forms are precisely the same.

> 3. All the other stuff is out of scope (and indeed only makes sense when
> there is an application to resolve what it means).


> I believe WSDL can do this, it's just that with nouns like "operation" we
> implicitly suggest to developers that WSDL is an IDL, when it isn't, it's
> CDL.

Its an IDL in my book, plus the ability to describe how/where that
interface is available (service+binding stuff). I don't see why
the use of the word "operation" instead of "message exchange" makes
it a CDL and not an IDL. Oh BTW, what's a CDL?

The WG has taken the decision (repeatedly, IIRC) to stay with the
term "operation" to describe a message exchange. So the discussion
on the name is no longer productive.


Received on Monday, 29 September 2003 11:36:16 UTC