RE: Which operation?

Hi Mark!

>>    - finally it could be something completely out of band - my username
>>      denotes i'm a Gold Paying Customer, or first 100 messages each day
>>      are Gold, the remainder will be "bog-standard". I'm not sure what
>>      we could do here in the WSDL language beyond kick it out to an
>>      extension mechanism - this kind of interaction is outside of the 
>>      domain of WSDL and in that scary land of "policy". 

> That's possible, but I hope it could be avoided; ideally, you don't
> want a message to change meaning because something outside the message
> - in this case, your Gold Paying status - changes.  That introduces,
> amoung other things, tighter temporal coupling between components;
> consider what might happen if the message is processed 2 weeks later,
> after your Gold Paying status has expired.  Self-descriptive messaging
> is your friend. 8-)

fair point, and FWIW i wouldn't publish a service that worked like this.
i guess that's the question - do we want to prevent the *possibility* of 
using out of message state to dispatch messages to an operation?

>> So WSDL could describe the dispatching mechanism being used via binding 
>> specific mechanisms or extensions and i don't think we should do anything 
>> to prevent other to attempt to recognise (2) at the cost of not being able 
>> to describe all of (1) as well as other unforeseen dispatching mechanisms.

> Sorry, I can't grok that.

Sorry, i'll try and rephrase. I think there is a trade-off here: if WSDL 
attempts to prevent publishing ambiguous WSDL documents it does so at the 
risk of excluding unforeseen (or out-of-message) dispatching mechanisms.

Paul

Received on Tuesday, 15 June 2004 10:46:50 UTC