Re: Open-top coordinators and protocol

[Sazi Temel <sazi.temel@bea.com>]

At 03:41 PM 5/29/01 +0100, Alastair Green wrote:
>Savas,
>
> > I am not suggesting that we should define the spec in this form. This is
> > the mapping of the spec to the Web Services arena. A decision we took in
> > the Boston f2f.

I have don't think we made this decision at the Boston f2f... In fact, some 
of us mentioned that the protocol should be applicable both for web 
services as well as other collaborative b2b systems.

>There has to be a WSDL interface for every actor in BTP
> > that participates in a defined-by the model-interaction.
>
>This is the first that I have heard of such a decision. I have consulted the
>document issued by Pal as an update to the document issued by me before the
>meeting. I see no reference to WSDL. I have consulted the minutes issued by
>PAL. There is no mention of WSDL. I have also consulted Peter (who attended
>in person) and he does not remember any such decision.
>
> > I have to repeat something from one of my previous messages. I am not
> > suggesting that the spec should be described in terms of WSDL. The spec
> > should be defined, as you have proposed, in terms of message sets. I am
> > merely saying that the mapping of BTP to the Web Services arena also
> > needs to be specified.
>
>Why don't we concentrate on what does have to happen, which is defining the
>message sets using XML schemas? Let's leave the WSDL issue as a second-order
>problem. WSDL levers on schemas, so that road should be open, as I see it,
>if and when required.
>
>I think it would be restrictive and wrong to suggest that this protocol can
>only be used through WSDL-advertised interfaces.
>
> >
> > WSDL is actually an XML document in which you can specify XSD schemas.
> > Although I don't like the analogy, you can think it like the IDL of Web
> > Services. Let's not forget that Web Services are the "new" components
> > and as such they need to have an interface. WSDL allows us to specify
> > that interface. If I want to use a Web Service in my application, I have
> > to know its WSDL.
>
>Yes, like I said, it's an IDL. It is not necessary to use WSDL to define
>this protocol. It is not necessary to use WSDL to define a SOAP carrier
>mapping. It might be useful to do this, but I am loath to create more
>dependencies than is necessary, especially when the referred "standards" are
>not yet finalized.
>
>[...]

I think it makes sense to use WSDL for the web services related interfaces 
in the protocol, but the protocol should enable different types of systems 
not only web services..

-- Sazi



>Alastair