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

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

From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 21:21:10 +0200 (CEST)
To: Siarhei Biarozkin <sberyozkin@zandar.com>
cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0207162117160.5511-100000@mail.idoox.com>

 Hi all, 8-)
 in SOAP RPC, the name of the request element should match the 
operation name, the name of the response element is irrelevant.
 Therefore I suggest that we make it clear that the request RPC 
wrapper element (style="rpc") name is equal to the operation name 
and that the response RPC wrapper element name is equal to the 
operation name with "Response" appended to it. This is the 
suggestion made by SOAP RPC and it is the current best practice 
AFAIK.
 The old way in WSDL 1.1 violated SOAP RPC because two 
operations, both named foo() (overloading in effect) required 
different names for the input elements and therefore different 
names of the SOAP RPC wrapper element - when clearly the SOAP RPC 
would name them both foo.
 Best regards,

                   Jacek Kopecky

                   Senior Architect, Systinet Corporation
                   http://www.systinet.com/



On Sun, 14 Jul 2002, Siarhei Biarozkin wrote:

 > 
 > 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 Tuesday, 16 July 2002 15:21:12 GMT

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