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

Re: service name as local part of a qname

From: Steve Tuecke <tuecke@mcs.anl.gov>
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2002 14:04:18 -0500
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20020630135855.01ec4180@localhost>
To: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>, "Steve Tuecke" <tuecke@mcs.anl.gov>

At 08:37 PM 6/29/2002, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
>First of all, note that this text is talking about *port* names
>and not *service* names.

Sorry, my mistake.  But I'm glad my misreading at least triggered your 
memory on the port name issue... :-)

I agree with you that requiring port names to be unique across the entire 
description group, rather than just the service, is a rather weird.

-Steve

At 08:37 PM 6/29/2002, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
>"Steve Tuecke" <tuecke@mcs.anl.gov> writes:
> > Section 2.6 Service Description Component states:
> >
> > "A port has a REQUIRED "name" property, which is used to identify this
> > port. The name property MUST be unique across the entire descriptions
>group
> > in which the containing service description component resides. Note that
> > while the name property is of type NCName, it SHALL NOT be used as the
> > localPart of a qualified name with the targetNamespace of the containing
> > descriptions group as the namespace name."
> >
> > Sorry if I missed this discussion previously, but why is there the
> > restriction on using the name property as the local part of a qualified
> > name?  This seems to be a new restriction since WSDL 1.1.
>
>First of all, note that this text is talking about *port* names
>and not *service* names.
>
>This is not a new restriction. Here's the text from WSDL 1.1
>(from section 2.6):
>
>     "The name attribute provides a unique name among all ports
>      defined within in the enclosing WSDL document."
>
>Your note reminded me that I felt that this restriction was a bit
>arbitrary as ports live within a service element. It seems much
>more natural to me to say that portNames must be unique *within*
>the service that the ports are defined in. Requiring them to be
>unique across all ports defined in the enclosing *document* is
>rather weird, especially in light of imports and such. I have
>introduced the following issue:
>
><issue id="issue-port-name-uniqueness">
>   <head>Should portName uniqueness be restricted to be across the
>         containing service only?</head>
>   <source>Sanjiva Weerwarana</source>
>   <p>Since ports are within &lt;service&gt; elements, it seems much
>      more natural to say that the port name must be unique across the
>      containing service element only. Requiring them to be unique
>      across all ports defined in the enclosing <emph>document</emph>
>      is rather weird, especially in light of imports and such. I
>      propose relaxing this requirement to say it must be unique within
>      the enclosing service element.</p>
></issue>
>
> > There is obviously no need for it to be a qname within the closed universe
> > of WSDL, since nothing else in WSDL needs to refer to a service
> > element.  However, if I want to be able to unambiguously refer to a
> > particular service from elsewhere (i.e. some application specific XML), it
> > seems very useful to be able to use the service name as the local part of
>a
> > qualified name.
> >
> > Also, given this restriction, then what is the point of naming the service
> > at all?  What else is that name used for?
>
>*Service* element names are referenceable and are regular QNames. The
>issue here is about ports. Do you agree?
>
>Bye,
>
>Sanjiva.
Received on Sunday, 30 June 2002 15:05:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:20 GMT