I vote yes.
Gennady
-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Schaeck [mailto:]
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 6:41 PM
To:
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>
