- From: Amelia A Lewis <alewis@tibco.com>
- Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 10:54:42 -0400
- To: paul.downey@bt.com
- Cc: distobj@acm.org, www-ws-desc@w3.org
On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 15:44:27 +0100 paul.downey@bt.com wrote: > > 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? It seems to me that if we expect WSDL 2.0 to be adopted in the places where WSDL 1.1 is now used, then we must permit out-of-band signalling mechanisms. This "dispatch problem" is hairy, and I wish it would go away, but my experience says that customers want it. > 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. Exactly. I don't think that we can do that and meet the needs of current WSDL authors who wish to transition systems forward to WSDL 2.0. Amy! -- Amelia A. Lewis Senior Architect TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc. alewis@tibco.com
Received on Tuesday, 15 June 2004 10:54:57 UTC