W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-policy@w3.org > January 2008

[Fwd: Re: [Bug 5346] Operation parameter in bindingOperation is of type QName]

From: Tammo van Lessen <tammo.van.lessen@iaas.uni-stuttgart.de>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 14:39:06 +0100
Message-ID: <478B65FA.2070105@iaas.uni-stuttgart.de>
To: "public-ws-policy@w3.org" <public-ws-policy@w3.org>

Hi all,

I'm reposting this because the original mail did not make it into the 
public mailinglist archive - so I was not sure whether you've got my 
mail or not. My apologies if you receive this twice.

Best regards,

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Bug 5346] Operation parameter in bindingOperation is of 
type QName
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 14:26:19 +0100
From: Tammo van Lessen <tvanlessen@taval.de>
To: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
CC: public-ws-policy@w3.org <public-ws-policy@w3.org>,  Christopher B 
Ferris (chrisfer@us.ibm.com) <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>


Paul Cotton wrote:
> Note that the comment actually refers to [1] which is an Editor's CVS
> version of the spec.  But I believe the comment applies to the
> published WG Note at [2].

Yes, it also applies to [2].

>> I'm wondering whether the second parameter ('operation') in
>> operation binding references should be really a QName. Shouldn't it
>> be a NCName? The examples are also referring to NCName, like
>> http://...#wsdl11.bindingOperation(TicketAgentSoap/listFlights)
> Here is my initial reaction:
> In particular the WSDL 2.0 table [4] defines the operation parameter
> for the binding references (e.g Binding Fault, Binding Operation,
> Binding Message Reference, and Binding Fault Reference) as QName.
> Since our table is based on the WSDL 2.0 table, I believe that we
> defined the second parameter's type as QNAME to match what was done
> in the WSDL 2.0 table [4].

AFAIK, WSDL 1.1 and WSDL 2.0 are somehow different in this case. WSDL
2.0 supports interface inheritance, thus inherited operations still have
another namespace (i.e. different to targetNamespace). I believe that's
why they are using QNames to identify an operation.

This is not the case in WSDL 1.1. The binding is specified for a
particular portType (without supporting inheritance), thus nested
bindings to operations can obviously only correspond to those defined in
this portType. Therefore I think that the tuple (binding, operation) is
sufficient to identify the operation uniquely.

But of course I might have got it wrong...

Best regards,

Tammo van Lessen
Institute of Architecture of Application Systems |Tel. (+49)711 7816 487
University of Stuttgart                          |Fax. (+49)711 7816 472
Universitaetsstr. 38, 70569 Stuttgart            |Room 1.132
Received on Monday, 14 January 2008 13:42:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:38:36 UTC