RE: Re: Describing which blobs are to be optimized.

> "A conformant WSDL processor MAY safely ignore a NON-mandatory 
> extension that it does not recognize or that it does not choose to 
> implement." (and also clarifies that the conformant processor 
> is acting on 
> behalf of the requester entity -- not the provider entity).
...
> This is NOT a symmetric interpretation of "optional", for a very good 
> reason: The WSD identifies (and applies to) the particular 
> provider agent 
> identified by the endpoint declaration.  But it does not identify the 
> requester agent.  It applies to *any* hypothetical requester 
> agent that 
> engages the provider agent under this WSD.  

I am not convinced by this explanation. In my view, the same way a WSDL
file is used by a requester to understand how the requester agent should
behave, it can equally be used by a provider to understand how the
provider agent should behave. 

I also have my doubts about the rationale for focusing on the endpoint
declaration of the provider agent. For instance, what does that endpoint
mean in the case of an Out-only pattern? Wouldn't it be more useful to
have the endpoint declaration of the "requester" agent instead?

> The WSD permits the provider 
> agent to declare its own support for a feature (which any 
> requester agent 
> may therefore use), but there is no way in the WSD to declare 
> what any 
> particular requester agent ACTUALLY supports.

I don't see why it should be that way and why we should assume that the
provider agent's behavior is better known than the requester agent's
behavior. That depends on the application, the deployment environment,
etc. To repeat the usual example of Walmart, if I am the one who writes
the WSDL file and at the same time I am the requester, I know exactly
what my requester agent ACTUALLY supports, but I might not know equally
well what my partner's provider agent is going to ACTUALLY support.

Ugo

Received on Friday, 11 June 2004 18:57:52 UTC