- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2004 23:42:57 -0400
- To: Prasad Yendluri <pyendluri@webmethods.com>
- Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Hi Prasad,
On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 10:48:45PM -0700, Prasad Yendluri wrote:
> I am sure we can device pretty creative and private means to identify
> the operation without it being in the message or
> communicated other wise directly. But why try and address this in
> indirect and round about ways when we can make this
> part of the message where it is really useful to have address the issue
> the most direct way.
>
> If I am invoking operation 'foo' I name that operation in my message by
> putting 'foo' in a well defined place.
I agree that it's generally more desirable to do this, primarily for
reasons of extensibility; that if the operation is in the message, then
it's easier to use a new operation than if it's not. I was just hearing
that the WG wanted to be able to describe services for which the
operation was implied, and just wanted to say that I considered this
architecturally sound(*).
(*) so long as the operation was still self-descriptively identifiable as
I described - unfortunately, much of what I've heard here recently
is not
Mark.
--
Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca
Seeking work on large scale application/data integration projects
and/or the enabling infrastructure for same.
Received on Sunday, 11 July 2004 23:42:33 UTC