Alex,
yes, can not just assume that things are implied or give the impression that
we will do that.
To be very frank, there will be a huge debate about WSDL and how, when or if
it will be used. This is the nature of the beast with service description.
Abbie
-----Original Message-----
From: Alex Rousskov [mailto:rousskov(_at_)measurement-factory(_dot_)com]
Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2004 2:52 AM
To: Markus Hofmann
Cc: OPES Group
Subject: Re: P-services interface in Strawman OPES Charter
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004, Markus Hofmann wrote:
What about the following:
In addition, the WG will define a rules language to control
selection and invocation of services by an OPES processor. This
includes a mechanism allowing an OPES processor to
perform a runtime
check of service parameters, leveraging existing interface
description standards like WSDL, if possible, or OPES-specific
description otherwise.
Sounds good to me. I assume there will be a sentence
somewhere about documenting interfaces for P/HTTP and P/SMTP
modules. Or is that implied?
Injecting "investigate" before "a mechanism allowing" may
make Abbie happier. Or we can replace "includes" with "may
include". Is that what you are after, Abbie?
Thanks,
Alex.