WSDL 2.0 MEP Task Force Discussion

23 Dec 2004

See also: IRC log


Dbooth, Jonathan_Marsh, GlenD, Umit


MEP Task Force Discussion (Issue LC50 and Issue LC5f)

<dbooth> GlenD: Goals of processor conformance: Allow someone to point to the spec and complain if someone else is non-conformant. Also to have a product stamped "WSDL 2.0 Conformant".

We're discussing adding a way to mark in WSDL the difference between a server requiring a feature and actually engaging the feature.

I.e. A server can require a feature but then not use it.

A client can choose whether or not to engage a non-required feature.

Suggesting adding some guidance (not a marker).

Glen: Hard to do that without adding more confusion.

Umit: Client always wants to recieve messages in an encrypted fashion. Not a WSDL problem.

Glen: Has to be out of band agreement.

DBooth: This is what I wanted to warn about. If there's an optional extension, the client must be able to indicate (in-band or out-of-band) whether to engage that extension.

Marsh: So a client can't tell just from looking at a batch of WSDL whether a required feature will be engaged by the server.

Glen: No, but individual features (e.g. security), can specify how or whether a feature will be engaged by the server, and teh client can rely on that.
... This guidance would be great as a note or a blog, but doesn't seem like it should go into the spec.
... Like best practices and patterns of using TCP.

Everyone likes DBooth's definition of node.

Summary of Action Items

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl 1.99 (CVS log)
$Date: 2004/12/23 16:51:00 $