Re: Action Item 2004-07-01 Solution to 168/R114

+1.  The type of service this is meant to describe is an architecturally
abhorrent one to me, since it's objective appears to be to remove
important self-descriptive features from messages for no apparent gain.
Nothing but interoperability problems can result from such an approach,

If you want to send messages without operations in them, the operations
have to be implicit via some bit in the message, e.g. the TCP port.
There's *always* an operation.  Pretending there isn't one by removing
it from the message only makes things worse.

On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 10:05:05AM -0400, Tom Jordahl wrote:
> Gudge,
> I understand your scenario, but I don't like it.  It's icky. :-)
> I would much prefer that WSDL 2.0 does not allow this situation to occur. As
> I read the requirement (114), we are tasked with providing a mechanism to
> ensure that this does not occur.
> 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.

Received on Tuesday, 13 July 2004 10:33:16 UTC