- From: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
- Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 07:13:53 -0700
- To: "Tom Jordahl" <tomj@macromedia.com>, "WS Description List" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
> -----Original Message----- > From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org > [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Tom Jordahl > Sent: 13 July 2004 15:05 > To: 'WS Description List' > Subject: RE: Action Item 2004-07-01 Solution to 168/R114 > > > Gudge, > > I understand your scenario, but I don't like it. It's icky. :-) By icky, do you mean 'not RPC'? > > I would much prefer that WSDL 2.0 does not allow this > situation to occur. Then WSDL 2.0 will not be able to describe a certain class of service. > As > I read the requirement (114), we are tasked with providing a > mechanism to > ensure that this does not occur. Then I think the requirement is wrong. Gudge > > I am fairly agnostic about how we accomplish this, I think I > would prefer > unique GEDs (and I voted for that) but I am also willing to support > Sanjiva's SOAPAction oriented (for the SOAP binding) proposal. > > I am not so much in favor of a features and properties based approach > however, as I believe this would create interop problems from day 1. > > -- > Tom Jordahl > Macromedia Server Development > > -----Original Message----- > From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org > [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On > Behalf Of Martin Gudgin > Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 6:01 AM > To: David Booth; Jeffrey Schlimmer > Cc: Umit Yalcinalp; WS Description List > Subject: RE: Action Item 2004-07-01 Solution to 168/R114 > > > > Let's take an interface with operations B and C both of which have the > same input message, X. Operation B has an output message Y, while > operation C has a different output message Z. Both B and C use the > In-Out pattern. Whether you get message Y or Z back depends on the > content of X. Let's for the sake of argument say that if a particular > value in X is over 1000 you get Z, otherwise you get Y. > > I believe that this is a coherent (if somewhat simplistic) example in > messaging systems. I also understand that it does not fit particularly > well into the RPC style. And that the WSDL does not describe > the details > of how the server determines whether to send Y or Z. C'est la > vie. There > is still enough information in the WSDL to construct messages that the > service will accept and to deconstruct messages the service will emit, > that is to interoperate with the service. > > Some of you are wondering what happened to operation A. But that's > another story... > > Gudge > > > >
Received on Tuesday, 13 July 2004 10:14:15 UTC