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

RE: Comment on Fragment Identifiers

From: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 14:44:42 -0800
To: Jonathan Marsh <jonathan@wso2.com>
CC: "public-ws-policy@w3.org" <public-ws-policy@w3.org>, 'Ashok Malhotra' <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>, David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>, "www-ws-desc@w3.org" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Message-ID: <4D66CCFC0B64BA4BBD79D55F6EBC22571FD4B78831@NA-EXMSG-C103.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>

> since in WSDL 2.0 the message labels are not limited to "in" or "out".

The WS-Policy WG asked me to bring forward an additional question about the WSDL 2.0 component designators.

We are wondering why the designators use "in" and "our" given that the actual WSDL message labels are "input" and "output"?

Was this a conscious decision of the WSDL WG?

This apparent discrepancy can be seen in the examples in Appendix C.2 of the WSDL 2.0 Candidate Recommendation [1].

/paulc

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/CR-wsdl20-20060327/#Iri-ref-ex

Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3
Tel: (613) 225-5445 Fax: (425) 936-7329
mailto:Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com





> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-policy-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Marsh
> Sent: December 21, 2006 5:20 PM
> To: 'Ashok Malhotra'; www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Cc: public-ws-policy@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Comment on Fragment Identifiers
>
>
> Ashok,
>
> Besides the answers to this mail you received to your query, the WG
> briefly
> discussed your suggestion and confirmed today that we will not move the
> message label on WSDL 2.0 component designators into the fragment scheme
> name, since in WSDL 2.0 the message labels are not limited to "in" or
> "out".
> These tokens are defined by the message exchange pattern in place, and we
> support extended message exchange patterns.  This design supports that
> extensibility (even though we're not using it within WSDL 2.0 ourselves).
>
> The WG expressed no preference on whether your suggested redesign was a
> benefit for WSDL 1.1 component designators, where there isn't support for
> MEP extensibility.  We note that if consistency with WSDL 2.0 component
> designators is paramount, keeping this redundant information in the format
> would be desirable.  Yet if simplicity is paramount, removing the
> redundant
> information as you suggest would be natural.
>
> Jonathan Marsh - http://www.wso2.com -
> http://auburnmarshes.spaces.live.com
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On
> > Behalf Of Ashok Malhotra
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 2:08 PM
> > To: www-ws-desc@w3.org.
> > Cc: 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 Thursday, 21 December 2006 22:45:28 GMT

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