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

Re: issue: optional parts in <message>?

From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 7 May 2002 22:35:01 +0600
Message-ID: <02e301c1f5e5$29d69850$07aa7cca@lankabook2>
To: "Mike Deem" <mikedeem@microsoft.com>, "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Cc: "WS-Desc WG \(Public\)" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Hi Mike,

> In any case, I do agree that removing message/part is almost certainly
> not in scope for WSDL 1.2. 

Great!

> However, I would like to propose that message descriptions be *expanded*
> to include constructs other then the wsdl:message element. Specifically,
> the message attribute on an input and output element would be able to
> reference a schema complex type directly. For example, this:
> 
> <type>
> <schema ...>
> <complexType name="MyMessageType">
> ...
> </complexType>
> </schema>
> </type>
> 
> <portType ...>
> <operation ...>
> <input ... message="sns:MyMessageType"/>
> </operation>
> </portType>
> 
> Would be an optional alternative to this:
> 
> <type>
> <schema ...>
> <complexType name="MyMessageType">
> ...
> </complexType>
> </schema>
> </type>
> 
> <message name="MyMessage">
> <part name="(any name)" type="sns:MyMessageType"/>
> </message>
> 
> <portType ...>
> <operation ...>
> <input ... message="wns:MyMessage"/>
> </operation>
> </portType> 
> 
> Such a mechanism would not be limited to just schema. Any type system
> understood by an implementation could be used to describe messages.

I thought about this too, but we also have to figure out the 
impact on bindings. Right now we have stuff like message= and
parts= in bindings. Those have to change too of course. If you
can work that out and make a concrete proposal that would be
great.

Sanjiva.
Received on Tuesday, 7 May 2002 12:38:19 GMT

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