- From: Glen Daniels <gdaniels@sonicsoftware.com>
- Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 15:38:17 -0500
- To: "Savas Parastatidis" <Savas.Parastatidis@newcastle.ac.uk>, "Amelia A Lewis" <alewis@tibco.com>
- Cc: <distobj@acm.org>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Hi Savas, all: > > "message exchange pattern" is a much better term than > "operation", but > > we *don't* want to end up in another argument about naming, > please the > > gods of small forest pools and sandy ocean beaches. > > In fact, if people in this mailing list (that's the ws-desc > one) remember, Jim and I proposed the renaming of > /interface/operation to /interface/messageExchange and during > the discussion more terms were mentioned... > /interactions/messageExchange or /interactions/exchange (was > it issue #88?). Yep, and Sanjiva suggested renaming this to "interaction" as well (which I liked). > I think the above much better captures the role of WSDL (at > least as the way Jim and I see it... and I guess Amy). We are > talking about a description of the message exchange patterns > and the formats of those messages. We are not describing > interfaces. Many toolkits have been treating WSDL as an IDL > for objects and that complete misses the point of Web > Services and as all of us know, Web Services != Distributed > objects :-)) (yes, that one again! :-) If you can't distinguish between message exchanges / interactions / operations, then what good are they? See my recent message to Amy [1]. The fact that "interfaces" happen to combine "operations", and that you COULD if you wanted to then map those "interfaces" to things that look like objects/classes, is, while true, orthogonal to the desire to utilize and identify the operations themselves. --Glen [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Feb/0176.html
Received on Monday, 23 February 2004 16:38:32 UTC