RE: LC344#5: clarification needed

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Rogers, Tony
> Sent: Tuesday, Oct 11, 2005 6:41 PM
> To: Sanjiva Weerawarana
> Cc: Hugo Haas; www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: RE: LC344#5: clarification needed
> 
> 
> My inner pedant feels a need to dispute this point, and I'm 
> humouring it
> today.
> 
> 	"MEPs don't have a concept of inbound vs outbound" 
> 
> If we consider the MEPs which have names like "in-only", "in-out",
> "out-only", "out-in", it looks like they do involve the concepts of
> in-bound and out-bound...
> 
> The way I manage to give some semblence of meaning to the "MEP with an
> initial message" concept was, as I mentioned, to read it as 
> "MEP with an
> initial inbound message", which would mean "in-only" and "in-out", but
> not "out-only" and "out-in".

After all, MEPs are used within a WSDL. WSDL is the contract described
from the perspective of the service providing the service. Hence, it is
clear that the contract is described from the perspective of the
provider, hence in, out concepts are relative to the provider. 

> 
> Anyway, enough catering to my inner (loud-mouth) pedant. :-)
> 

--umit

> 
> Tony Rogers
> tony.rogers@ca.com
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Sanjiva Weerawarana
> Sent: Wednesday, 12 October 2005 10:14
> To: Rogers, Tony
> Cc: Hugo Haas; www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: RE: LC344#5: clarification needed
> 
> 
> On Wed, 2005-10-12 at 06:43 +1000, Rogers, Tony wrote:
> > The only interpretation I have managed to come up with for this odd 
> > structure is "any MEP with an initial input message" - 
> implying that 
> > it is not applicable to MEPs where the first message is out-bound.
> 
> MEPs don't have a concept of inbound vs outbound .. they talk about
> messages going between different parties. Of course each message is
> inbound to someone and outbound from someone else.
> 
> > I'm happy to drop the offending bits.
> 
> +1.
> 
> Sanjiva.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 12 October 2005 22:59:24 UTC