W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > February 2004

Re: Action item 2003-11-03 OperationName feature

From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@systinet.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 15:44:57 +0100
To: Umit Yalcinalp <umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com>
Cc: WS Description List <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1076597097.20175.105.camel@localhost>


Sorry about replying with such a delay. I think this proposal is OK,
with one minor tweak I'd like to see:

You use the URI designators for indicating the operation in
OperationDispatch module's "operation" header. I believe that the
operation QName is better readable, therefore the tweak is to change the
"operation" element's type to xs:QName and its value to the
namespace-qualified name of the operation.

Best regards,

                   Jacek Kopecky

                   Systinet Corporation

On Wed, 2004-01-21 at 22:03, Umit Yalcinalp wrote:
> Folks,
> Here is the writeup for OperationName feature as fullfilment of my 
> action item. To refresh your memory, this action item came into 
> existence because we wanted to have a mechanism to be able to identify 
> the operation involved in the message exchange  since operation names  
> are currently not part of the exchange, but GEDs are.  Since multiple 
> operations may contain the same element, just looking at the messges on 
> the wire, it is impossible to distinguish the operation that is 
> currently involved in the exchange. See15:45 Uniqueness on the wire 
> discussion in [1]. Our goal is to remedy this problem.  This information 
> can be used for dispatching purposes as well.
> Attached please find my proposal for OperationName feature (and related 
> property) which are aptly named for what they are trying to represent.
> Cheers,
> --umit
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Nov/0059.html
Received on Thursday, 12 February 2004 09:47:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:06:38 UTC