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

Hey Roberto:

> Good! But then define just one operation,
>   <operation name="doesitall">
>     <input element="#any"/>
>     <output element="#any"/>
>   </operation>
> and you're done. You can use types more specific than #any if 
> you want, I don't mind at all. Internally, you can do what 
> you want, have any number of operations, or use something 
> else entirely, I'm OK with that.

I'm fine with that in the abstract sense (that messages go in and
messages come out). Operations allow us a first cut at defining a MEP
which may be useful to a consumer though (i.e. mesasge goes in, expect
nothing to come out etc).

So maybe (and getting a little off topic here) operations could be
expanded to deal with MEPs? 

> But if you partition the set of possible exchanges in 
> buckets, advertise that fact prominently in the WSDL and then 
> tell to an innocent bystander like me "Nope, just kidding! 
> See? There are no buckets, no matter how close you look!", 
> well, that sounds like cheating.

Nope not cheating, just presenting my service at an appropriate level of
abstraction for consumers. The wsdl:operation tells the consumer that a
particular basic MEP is supported. "operation" is a misnomer here (hence
why I (and Savas) previously argued for it be be renamed
"messageExchange" or the moral equivalent).

> Operations exist, because _you_ put them in the WSDL _you_ published.

Operations are in the eye of the beholder. In my code there isn't a
single name that matches the operation I chose to put in the WSDL that I
shared with you. In effect, all you have is a name by which you can
identify a message exchange that my service supports.


Received on Tuesday, 13 July 2004 21:30:23 UTC