- From: Roberto Chinnici <Roberto.Chinnici@Sun.COM>
- Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 11:09:53 -0700
- To: Jim Webber <jim.webber@arjuna.com>
- Cc: "'Bijan Parsia'" <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>, "'Tom Jordahl'" <tomj@macromedia.com>, www-ws-desc@w3.org
Jim Webber wrote: > Bijan: > > >>I find myself agreeing with Tom (in spite of his liking of >>*Underworld* >>:)), but then, I've been easily swayed on this topic. I wonder if the >>folks who find "operation" too suggestive of objectness find >>attributes >>similarly misleading. > > > I have always disliked attributes since they do not fit into my "services > are entities which exchnage messages" view of the world. In fact I like > attributes farless than I like operation, since at least operation is just a > label for an exchange of messages, whereas attributes introduce something > which fundamentally does not fit here. Hence the proposal to have attributes be simply a pair of operations which happen to be correlated in a particular way. A special syntactic form for them would then be justified uniquely on the basis of the interest in using this construct expressed by various (sub-)communities. No other properties of "attributes" would be implied by WSDL, although other specs would evidently be free to build on what WSDL provides. Roberto -- Roberto Chinnici Java Web Services Sun Microsystems, Inc. roberto.chinnici@sun.com
Received on Tuesday, 30 September 2003 14:08:29 UTC