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

[Michael Freedman <Michael.Freedman@oracle.com>]

I vote against/no.
     -Mike-

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>