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

+1, to all points !!!  Kudos, Glen.  That's exactly what I was saying.

On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 02:09:21PM -0400, Glen Daniels wrote:
> Why do we bother to even define such a thing in WSDL, then?  It seems to
> me that the operation, regardless of how it is determined, represents
> the *intent* of the sender of the message.  Here, I'm sending you a
> stock ticker symbol - if I'm invoking "getStockQuote", I want one thing
> in response, and if I'm invoking "findCompanyZipCode" I want something
> else.  Note that I'm not talking about RPC here, I'm just talking about
> the contract between the sender and the receiver.
> If we agree (and perhaps we don't...) that WSDL describes Web Service
> *operations* and not just random collections of messages, then I believe
> it's important to ensure that there are interoperable ways in which
> senders and receivers can ensure that they understand how to invoke
> particular operations.  Again, not talking about code-level dispatch
> here, but rather "WSDL-level" operation identification.
> Even if we DO say that WSDL is in fact about operations, and that we
> should enable you to know which operation is being invoked, you're free
> to design a "doIt" operation and then let anyone send you anything on
> that single operation.  But if we DON'T say that operations are
> important, then we seriously reduce the usability of the language for
> those who DO care about them as "buckets of functionality".
> I'm not entirely sure, but I think we may STILL be having the "what is a
> Web Service" argument! :)
> --Glen

Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.

  Seeking work on large scale application/data integration projects
  and/or the enabling infrastructure for same.

Received on Wednesday, 14 July 2004 14:21:01 UTC