intra-port relationships (was: Re: WSDL 1.2: Updated draft (June 30) - typos and minor errors)

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:21 GMT

"Prasad Yendluri" <pyendluri@webmethods.com> writes:
> confusion areas. The intera-port-relationship issue we closed recently by
a
> vote or whatever without addressing the confusion or mystery around that
goes
> against this aim unfortunately, IMHO.  I would urge that we try and
clarify
> the text in such places in the spirit of removing the confusion in the
spec
> rather than closing the issues by majority vote to just for the sake of
> addressing it formally. My 2 cents..
>
> Regards, Prasad

I agree that the stmt in the current draft about intra-port
relationships is un-motivated:

  <item><p>None of the ports communicate with each other (i.e. the output
  of one port is not the input of another).
    <issue id="issue-intra-port-relationship" status="closed">
      <head>Should intra-port relationships be allowed?</head>
      <source>Prasad Yendluri</source>
      <p>The above restrictions seems to be unnecessary. What is the
      justification?</p>
      <resolution><p>Decided to retain this restriction as no one could
      figure out what one would want with having this feature. See
      Wed PM minutes for June '02 F2F.</p></resolution>
    </issue>
  </p></item>

We did close this issue, but I personally have no objection to
re-opening it and doing away with this restriction. Basically,
that would amount to not saying anything about intra-port
relationships. IMO that's ok because I personally don't think
many would think about intra-port relationships and hence this
paragraph would only cause confusion.

What does everyone think?

Sanjiva.