W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org > May 2005

RE: Feature Composition Edge Cases

From: Asir Vedamuthu <asirv@webmethods.com>
Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 11:19:21 -0700
Message-ID: <5B10E50E14A4594EB1B5566B69AD9407068E6BA7@maileast>
To: 'Jonathan Marsh' <jmarsh@microsoft.com>, Asir Vedamuthu <asirv@webmethods.com>
Cc: public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org

Thank you for considering my comment.

Asir

-----Original Message-----
From: public-ws-desc-comments-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-ws-desc-comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Marsh
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 3:57 PM
To: Asir Vedamuthu
Cc: public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org
Subject: RE: Feature Composition Edge Cases



Thank you for the comment below, and for your patience with us in
resolving it.  We tracked the comment below as Issue LC20 [1].  The WG
agreed to change the feature composition model so that required
properties trump non-required properties, instead of the previous
proximity rules.  The editors have addressed the issue in their latest
drafts [2].

If you agree with our disposition of your comment, we'd like you to
acknowledge it within two weeks; otherwise we will assume you are
satisfied.  The WG plans to enter a second (short) Last Call period in
the near future, and we invite you to review that publication as well.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC20
[2] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20.html
#Feature_composition_model

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-desc-comments-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-desc-
> comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Asir Vedamuthu
> Sent: Monday, August 23, 2004 7:32 PM
> To: 'public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org'
> Subject: Feature Composition Edge Cases
> 
> 
> ref: http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-wsdl20-
> 20040803/#Feature_composition_model
> 
> Does our feature composition model capture all possible cases? I am
> not
> sure. Here is a sample edge case,
> 
> <interface name="Bank">
>     <!-- All implementations of this interface must be secure -->
>     <feature uri="http://example.com/secure-channel"
>              required="true"/>
>     ..
> </interface>
> 
> <interface name="OpenBank" extends="Bank">
>     <!-- we don't give a damn -->
>     <feature uri="http://example.com/secure-channel"
>              required="false"/>
>     ..
> </interface>
> 
> According to Interface Component,
> 
> "{features}	= The set of Feature components corresponding to the
> feature
> element information items in [children], if any, plus the set of
> Feature
> components in the {features} property of the Interface components in
> {extended interfaces}, if any."
> 
> According to our equivalence rules, feature declared in Bank interface
> is
> not equivalent to the feature declared in Open Bank interface.
> Because, the
> value of {required} property is different. If these two feature
> components
> are present in interface component.{features}, what is the net effect?
> Secure channel is an optional feature! That confuses me. Please
> revisit our
> feature composition model and flush out all such edge cases.
> 
> Also, shall we provide a special rule for computing the equivalence of
> feature components?
> 
> Regards,
> Asir S Vedamuthu
> asirv at webmethods dot com
> http://www.webmethods.com/
Received on Friday, 6 May 2005 18:19:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:20:31 GMT