- From: Amelia A Lewis <alewis@tibco.com>
- Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 13:25:29 -0400
- To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Cc: WS-Description WG <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
On Sep 14, 2004, at 1:16 PM, Mark Baker wrote: > On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 01:07:13PM -0400, Amelia A Lewis wrote: >>> But finally, without the requirement, one cannot tell whether two >>> different services with the same binding use the same dispatch >>> mechanism >>> or not, if one is not explicitly mentioned. I'm slightly uneasy about >>> this. >> >> On the other hand, this gives me warm fuzzies. The dispatch mechanism >> (or mechanisms) used by the service are probably not properly the >> interest of the users of the service. > > I think this is the crux of the disagreement. IMO, that information > is critical. Without it, there is no contract. I couldn't disagree more. With it, the contract has been fouled with extraneous information that enforces implementation decisions on the service that shouldn't be exposed, much less enforced for the long term. I think we repeatedly come at this from different directions. I (because my company's customers demand it) want to be able to begin to describe existing services, even if they do not implement best current practices. As far as I can see, the backers of publicized/enforced dispatch are attempting to ensure that new code follows best practices, by requiring these practices. As I've said before, I'd love to be in a position to write new code whenever I wanted, but I'm not. It is, at best, a bloody best practice. That's not a requirement. Make it a requirement, and you make it necessary to avoid it, effectively making *any* published information less useful, because it all has to be treated as potentially a lie. Amy! -- Amelia A. Lewis Senior Architect TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc. alewis@tibco.com
Received on Tuesday, 14 September 2004 17:22:43 UTC