- From: Jim Webber <Jim.Webber@newcastle.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 02:31:51 +0100
- To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
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. Jim -- http://jim.webber.name
Received on Tuesday, 13 July 2004 21:30:23 UTC