W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-policy@w3.org > January 2007

RE: NEW ISSUE 4251 - Change syntax of some WSDL 1.1 identifiers

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 16:21:03 -0800
Message-ID: <E16EB59B8AEDF445B644617E3C1B3C9C0304E528@repbex01.amer.bea.com>
To: "Ashok Malhotra" <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>, <public-ws-policy@w3.org>

I think your proposal be:

- wsdl11.portType.input(portType/operation)
- wsdl11.portType.output(portType/operation)
- wsdl11.portType.fault(portType/operation)
 
Cheers,
Dave
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Ashok Malhotra
> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 10:54 AM
> To: public-ws-policy@w3.org
> Subject: NEW ISSUE 4251 - Change syntax of some WSDL 1.1 identifiers
> 
> 
> This issue was first discussed in my note 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Nov/0128.html
> It recommended that the syntax of the identifiers
> - wsdl11.portTypeMessageReference(portType/operation/message)
> - wsdl11.portTypeOperationFault(portType/operation/fault)
> be changed to
> - wsdl11.portTypeMessageInput(portType/operation)
> - wsdl11.portTypeMessageOutput(portType/operation)
> - wsdl11.portTypeMessageFault(portType/operation)
> 
> Similar changes were recommended for the corresponding 
> identifiers for the binding element.
> 
> David Orchard argued that the syntax was designed to align 
> with the WSDL 2.0 syntax.  So, I asked the WSDL 2.0 WG for 
> their opinion.  They explained their rationale in 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Dec/0092.html
> 
> Jonathan Marsh expressed their opinion succinctly as "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."
> 
> Thus, we need to answer Jonathan's question above and take 
> the appropriate decision.
> 
> 
> All the best, Ashok
> 
> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 18 January 2007 00:21:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:20:45 GMT