Re: "Bulk load" get/set

On Tuesday, September 30, 2003, at 02:09  PM, Roberto Chinnici wrote:
> 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.

That dosen't, I can't believe I've entered this debate because, really, 
I don't care :), answer the issue that the NAME is "misleading". 
Actually, the correlation reinforces that misleadingness.

Er...not that *I* care :)

> 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.

Well, perhaps to address the people who are concerned about the objecty 
flavor (though, really, if message passing alone is sufficient for make 
something objecty for Alan Kay, it's good enough for me :)), we should 
have "Don't make false inferences from this name, oh, and the 
correlation, oh, and the major use cases..." text, say in the primer?

We could have a whole section on "What not to infer from WSDL component 
names"! :)

Bijan Parsia.

Received on Tuesday, 30 September 2003 15:46:35 UTC