W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > July 2002

Re: Name AII on input/output EIIs in port type operations

From: Siarhei Biarozkin <sberyozkin@zandar.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 15:09:29 +0100
Message-ID: <000e01c22b40$12b4df20$1800a8c0@BERYOZKIN>
To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

Hello Sanjiva,
I'd just like to comment on the issue of input/output names.
If they're removed, then there's no alternative way to specify how the
input/output is named on the wire, the only possible combination is
OperationNameRequest/OperationNameResponse,
I don't know at this stage, though, of any use cases when it's important to
be able to use that alternative way of inputs/outputs naming,
Best regards
Sergey Beryozkin
Zandar Technologies, Dublin, Ireland
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
> To: "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>; <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
> Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2002 6:31 PM
> Subject: Re: Name AII on input/output EIIs in port type operations
>
>
> >
> > The reason those name attributes were there was to distinguish
> > between overloaded operations. WSDL 1.1 section 2.5 has (near
> > the bottom):
> > "An operation element within a binding specifies binding information for
> the
> > operation with the same name within the binding's portType. Since
> operation
> > names are not required to be unique (for example, in the case of
> overloading
> > of method names), the name attribute in the operation binding element
> might
> > not be enough to uniquely identify an operation. In that case, the
correct
> > operation should be identified by providing the name attributes of the
> > corresponding wsdl:input and wsdl:output elements."
> >
> > So when operation names are unique (i.e., no overloading) the
input/output
> > names are not needed.
> >
> > Do you not concur? We can certainly re-open the issue and discuss it
more
> if
> > you like.
> >
> > Bye,
> >
> > Sanjiva.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
> > To: "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>; <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
> > Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2002 11:06 PM
> > Subject: RE: Name AII on input/output EIIs in port type operations
> >
> >
> > >
> > > It was not clear to me on the call what the resolution of this was. My
> > > understanding of the 'remove overloaded operations' issue was that the
> > > resolution called for the spec to say something along the lines of;
> > >
> > > 'the name AIIs of all operation EIIs in a given portType must be
unique'
> > >
> > > I don't recall the resolution stating that we would remove the name
> > > attributes from input and output.
> > >
> > > Gudge
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Martin Gudgin
> > > > Sent: 11 July 2002 10:35
> > > > To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> > > > Subject: Name AII on input/output EIIs in port type operations
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Can someone point me to the e-mail/minutes where we decided
> > > > to remove the 'name' AII from input/output EIIs in port type
> > > > operations? I notice in the latest draft of the spec this AII
> > > > no longer appears; input/output just have a message AII.
> > > > Unfortunately the schema doesn't match this.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > >
> > > > Gudge
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
> >
Received on Sunday, 14 July 2002 10:09:49 GMT

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