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

I think Umit was intending to talk about the WSDL 2.0 *spec* requiring it 
of WSDs -- not the WSD *author* requiring it of a particular service.

The question is:  When a service requires its users to support a particular 
mechanism for determining the wsdl:operation name in order to use that 
service, should the WSD author be required to indicate that mechanism as 
wsdl:required in the WSD?  Some think the WSDL 2.0 spec should make this 
requirement in order to prevent the interop issue illustrated by Scenario 
X[1]; some don't.

1. Scenario X:

At 11:01 AM 7/14/2004 -0700, Jonathan Marsh wrote:

>Umit wrote:
> > All I want for Xmas is the marker in my WSDL to require services that
>are > users of such mechanisms to explicitly declare what they really
>rely on.
>We provide facilities to mark features and extension elements as
>required for just this purpose.  Specifically, services which demand
>that clients use WS-Addressing or WS-MD for proper operation would
>presumably have to indicate this requirement in the WSDL through a
>required feature or wsdl:required="true".  Isn't this adequate?

David Booth
W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard
Telephone: +1.617.253.1273

Received on Thursday, 15 July 2004 11:18:52 UTC