Re: Issue 168 (Which Operation?) / Requirement R114

David Booth wrote:

<snip/>

>
> OPTIONS FOR MOVING FORWARD
> I believe the scenario above illustrates the heart of this dilemma.  
> Would this scenario represent an acceptable reality?  Or should this 
> WG try to prevent it?  If so, how?
>
> We are now approaching Last Call, which is the time when we announce 
> to the world that we believe we have met all of our requirements.  We 
> cannot afford to delay LC, but we obviously have not yet met 
> requirement R114.  What should we do?  I see a few options.
>
> Option 1a: Rescind requirement R114.
>
> Option 1b: Acknowledge in our LC draft that R114 has not been met, 
> without formally rescinding it.  At this point I don't know if there 
> is much difference between this option and option 1a.  Either one is 
> likely to result in minority opinions being filed.
>
> Option 2: Come up with a new proposal and adopt it.  (But we are 
> running out of time to do so.)
>
> Option 3: Reconsider an existing proposal.
>
>
David,

Thanks for the summary. I just want to add couple of points to your 
analysis.

What seems to be the heart of the issue is not the requirement per se, 
but whether the requirement is delivered with WSDL or not. Namely, 
whether WSDL provides the necessary AND sufficient information for 
applications to infer the specific message exchange engaged.

The point is applications do not want to code the name of the operation 
engaged (which is a meta-level information really) as part of the 
message itself. This problem is therefore shifted to a 
tooling/infrastructure level. Typically, there are out of band 
mechanisms on top of what is in WSDL that conveys this information. Yup, 
I will say the dreaded words, let it be WS-Addressing, 
WS-MessageDelivery, SoapAction, Glen/Umit OperationName Feature 
Proposal, unique GED, or some other feature which I unintentionally 
neglected here. They are all out there and this message is not create 
yet another thread on these specific solutions.

The question that the WSD wg members should carefully consider is 
whether WSD is going to deliver the necessary AND sufficient solution 
for this requirement, namely just inspecting WSDL document whether a 
processor knows how message exchanges may be uniquely identified.

We don't believe that the removing the requirement the problem will go 
away, different ways of solving this issue will exist and will make WSDL 
an incomplete contract. We can not just sweep it under the carpet. Your 
analysis is right, you can count on me to be "on the road again" 
expressing exactly what I am stating with a minority opinion if this 
requirement were to be removed :-)

As the ultimate optimist, I believe that there is yet another proposal 
to address this problem namely option (2).  I promise to write it down 
by the end of the week as it is too late for tomorrow's concall. 
Jonathan, if we could move this item to next week's agenda instead of 
tomorrow's, at least my proposal could be seen (hopefully) by the wg.

Thanks,

--umit


--

Umit Yalcinalp                                  
Consulting Member of Technical Staff
ORACLE
Phone: +1 650 607 6154                          
Email: umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com

Received on Wednesday, 30 June 2004 17:50:24 UTC