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

[Gino Filicetti <gfilicetti@bowstreet.com>]

Against...

G

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Schaeck [mailto:SCHAECK@de.ibm.com]
> Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 11:41 AM
> To: wsrp-wsia@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: [wsrp-wsia] e-Mail Vote on Issue #59 (refined)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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>
>