W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-policy@w3.org > December 2006

RE: Comment on Fragment Identifiers

From: Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 17:31:34 -0500
To: "Ashok Malhotra" <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
Cc: "public-ws-policy@w3.org" <public-ws-policy@w3.org>, "www-ws-desc@w3.org." <www-ws-desc@w3.org>, www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF283C1756.CEB93F8B-ON85257243.007B885B-85257243.007BC378@ca.ibm.com>
Ashok,

This is a case of simplicity versus consistency with WSDL 2.0.

In WSDL 2.0, the MEPs are an extension point and that third parameter can 
have any value (as defined by a new MEP). It's the message label and not 
restricted to in and out. It defines a role.

I'm not advocating either way - just explaining the origin.

Arthur Ryman,
IBM Software Group, Rational Division

blog: http://ryman.eclipsedevelopersjournal.com/
phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411
fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
mobile: +1-416-939-5063, text: 4169395063@fido.ca



"Ashok Malhotra" <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com> 
Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
12/13/2006 05:08 PM

To
"www-ws-desc@w3.org." <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
cc
"public-ws-policy@w3.org" <public-ws-policy@w3.org>
Subject
RE: Comment on Fragment Identifiers







Resending.  Last attempt was truncated.

As you may know, the WS-Policy WG has been doing some work on defining
element identifiers for WSDL 1.1 elements.  We are trying to align this
work with the WSDL 2.0 fragment identifiers described in Appendix A.2 of
the WSDL 2.0 Candidate Recommendation draft of 2006-03-27.

In looking at Appendix A.2 I came across two situations where I think the 
syntax can be improved.  Consider
 wsdl.interfaceMessageReference(interface/operation/message)
this fragment identifier takes 3 parameters.  The first two take names as 
values while the third takes a message label whose value can only be 
"input" or "output".  Having a parameter that takes a keyword as value 
seems foreign to the general design in which parameters take names as 
values.  Thus, I suggest that the label be added to the name of the 
fragment identifier and it have only two parameters, thus:
                 wsdl.interfaceMessageInput(interface/operation)
                 wsdl.interfaceMessageOutput(interface/operation)

The following row in the table can also be improved.
 wsdl.interfaceFaultReference(interface/operation/message/fault)
can be replaced by two identifiers
                 wsdl.interfaceInFault(interface/operation/fault)
                 wsdl.interfaceInFault(interface/operation/fault)

Similar suggestions apply to 
                 wsdl.bindingMessageReference(binding/operation/message) 
and
 wsdl.bindingFaultReference(binding/operation/message/fault)

I hope you will consider these changes.

All the best, Ashok
Received on Wednesday, 13 December 2006 22:32:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:20:44 GMT