- From: Amelia A Lewis <alewis@tibco.com>
- Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 12:41:12 -0400
- To: Ugo Corda <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>
- Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org, hugo@w3.org, xml-dist-app@w3.org
On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 09:12:30 -0700 Ugo Corda <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com> wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Amelia A Lewis [mailto:alewis@tibco.com] > > Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 7:32 AM > > To: Ugo Corda > > Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org; hugo@w3.org; xml-dist-app@w3.org > > Subject: Re: Describing which blobs are to be optimized. > > > > > > On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 15:57:20 -0700 > > Ugo Corda <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com> wrote: > > > I also have my doubts about the rationale for focusing on > > the endpoint > > > declaration of the provider agent. For instance, what does that > > > endpoint mean in the case of an Out-only pattern? Wouldn't > > it be more > > > useful to have the endpoint declaration of the "requester" agent > > > instead? > > > > Only if you're locked into thinking about HTTP and > > client/server models. > > > > In a pub/sub world, an out-only pattern (or any out-initial > > pattern) is a nice fit, and we expect to see these widely > > used. This is because, in pub/sub, the service is talking, > > not listening; publishing, not serving. > > The other nodes interacting with the service are not > > requesters/clients, but listeners/subscribers. > > > > That's exactly my point. In that kind of scenario, it should more > important to focus on the endpoint of the listener/subscriber than on > the endpoint of the service itself. No, no, no! Absolutely not! The *publisher* defines what it publishes. It publishes en masse. It is not controlled by the subscriber. It just spews. It's up to the subscriber to separate wheat from chaff. > > > I don't see why it should be that way and why we should assume that > > > the provider agent's behavior is better known than the requester > > > agent's behavior. > > > > Because the WSDL is always from the point of view of the > > service. > > This sounds more like an article of faith than a rational explanation. It's neither. It's a topic that has been hotly debated, and adopted as a principle, which then leads to certain forms of information being included in the document, and other forms excluded. > In any case, if you guys have already gone over this before, I won't > insist (but I remain skeptical about the soundness of this assumption). *shrug* Call for discussion of whether WSDL ought to be solely from the point of view of the service, anyone? Is Gudge listening? Amy! -- Amelia A. Lewis Senior Architect TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc. alewis@tibco.com
Received on Monday, 14 June 2004 12:41:24 UTC