RE: Minority objection to requiring unique GEDs or required feature to distinguish operations

Hi Paul, all:

> unfortunately as Amy has pointed out, there is there nothing 
> in the status quo to prevent a service from declaring that 
> the dispatching mechanism is "out of band", "random" or even 
> "undisclosed" by simply conjuring up an appropriate URI.

...the key word here being "declaring".  By saying that you HAVE to
somehow declare how this works, you gain clarity (from Latin "de+clare,
to make clear").  Sure, someone could define an extension which means
"turn off operation-name resolution", but I for one don't plan to write
support for such a thing in my product.  And if my tool faults when
trying to build skeletons to implement a service defined in a WSDL using
such an extension, at least the user will know exactly which extension
caused the problem.

> the outcome of all this is that the consumer of a web service 
> will indeed have to treat operations that accept the same 
> input as a single event driven operation (for non-RPC styles) 
> and i think that is the architectural goal of some members of this WG.

I think that if what you want is a single event driven operation, you
should declare, in the WSDL, a single operation which takes and/or
returns a choice.  You should not, IMHO, use the WSDL model to declare a
bunch of operations which you then invalidate by refusing to have any
interoperable way to distinguish between them.

--Glen

Received on Thursday, 12 August 2004 13:45:39 UTC