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


> BTW, in case it helps explain the issue, I should clarify that by
> this style of message, the client can have no expectation that the
> will be returned on the response to the "MSFT" message, because to
> such an expectation would be assuming a contract with "getStockQuote"
> (*not* processMessage) semantics and would therefore have the same
> non-self-descriptive problems as the other approach I'm critiquing.

I don't think we are disagreeing here. To expect that just because the
operation is called "getStockQuote" you'll get the semantics which may
implied by the human-readable name (without actually going into a
specification and reading about the intentions of the service-providers)
I think is incorrect. All you can expect is structural compliance to the
service's description of the messages being exchanged.

Perhaps we should come up with a language called WSSL (WS Semantics
Language) to accompany WSDL (WS Description Language).

> Note that Jim and Savas and I have talked about this extensively, but
> they still disagree with me.

Yes! You are wrong and we are right :-))) (just joking of course)


Received on Wednesday, 14 July 2004 13:15:38 UTC