Re: [wsrp-wsia] e-Mail Vote on Issue #59 (refined)

[Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>]

I vote No.

Ciao,
Rex

At 5:40 PM +0100 11/15/02, Thomas Schaeck wrote:
>Dear WSRP and WSIA TC Members,
>
>I put up the following issue for an e-mail vote (ending 1 week after this
>notice goes out) - the following summarizes the discussion for this issue
>(thanks Rich !)
>
>Issue #59 (refined) - Keep the wsdlURL field in ServiceDescription?
>
>Arguments in favor:
>  - If this was an infrastructural portType (has that flavor), this would be
>THE required field.
>  - This provides a standardized place to produce a dynamic WSDL that
>reflects the Consumer's registration.
>
>Arguments against:
>  - Since we are above the infrastructural level, this information has to be
>already known in order to invoke getServiceDescription().
>  - If the infrastructural level provides such information in the future, it
>will be redundant and likely incompatible
>  - Not critical for v1.0 ... can be an extension for those wishing to
>provide the dynamic WSDL concept.
>  - Assumes the signature will not change for future versions of the spec.
>  - Belongs as part of the discovery process rather than as part of the
>service.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Thomas
>
>Thomas Schaeck
>Chairman OASIS WSRP TC
>
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
>manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>


-- 
Rex Brooks
Starbourne Communications Design
1361-A Addison, Berkeley, CA 94702 *510-849-2309
http://www.starbourne.com * rexb@starbourne.com