From
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Aug/0027.html
>1. It reduces the expressive power of the language.
Can you elaborate? I don't see how this can be true. The requirement is
solely to document *how* the dispatch must be enabled. It does not
*restrict* the way the dispatch can be done.
>2. It forces services to disclose how they distinguish between
>operations which leads to tighter coupling between the service and its
>consumers than is necessary for interop.
I don't think anyone intended this to force the service to disclose
internal details that the consumer does NOT need. I'm pretty sure the
intent is only to require this disclosure when the consumer DOES need to
know about it -- i.e., when it is required for interop, i.e., as loosely
coupled as possible for interop.
>3. For WSDL authors that want to distinguish between operations
>'on-the-wire' then using unique global element declarations for each
>message is sufficient.
They could, but that misses the point of the interop issue illustrated by
Scenario X[3], which describes a situation in which a toolkit generates a
WSD. Thus far, the WG has not wanted to require unique GEDs.
>4. The mechanism can be trivially circumvented, by defining a
>'null' feature that claims to satisfy the requirement but in fact
>provides no details on how operations are distinguished. Indeed, someone
>has proposed this[2] as a way of 'testing' this particular part of the
>specification.
Yes. However, just because it can be circumvented does not render it
entirely useless. But it *does* suggest that WSD authors should be given
more guidance on its use. And it *does* suggest that we should change it
from a MUST to a SHOULD.
>5. This restriction makes WSDL 2.0 unable to describe a class of
>message exchanges allowed by WS-Addressing.
Again, I don't see how this can be true. Can you give an example of a
message exchange that would be prohibited by the operation name mapping
requirement?
