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

RE: Extending port types (AKA a scenario for UPnP)

From: Keith Ballinger <keithba@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 22:26:49 -0700
Message-ID: <2BB6686A81A0AD46AF23522309B6CC00011EDDD1@RED-MSG-10.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Jeffrey Schlimmer" <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>, <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
It seems to me that we could get the same functionality by allowing ports to implement more than one portType. This would satisfy Jeffrey's requirement (I'm pretty sure) without us having to deal with inheritance.
 
Changing the attribute name to bindings (with an "s"), and making the value a list a list of qnames, this could look like this:
 
<port name="TunerPort" bindings="tns:basicTuner tns:AdvancedTuner">


	-----Original Message----- 
	From: Jean-Jacques Moreau [mailto:moreau@crf.canon.fr] 
	Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 2:14 AM 
	To: Jeffrey Schlimmer 
	Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org 
	Subject: Re: Extending port types (AKA a scenario for UPnP) 

	I don't know if this is being put forward as a formal proposal, 
	but I like the general direction this is going. 

	Jean-Jacques. 

	Jeffrey Schlimmer wrote: 

	> A possible solution to this would be to allow one port type to 
	> derive from another by extending the set of operations 
	> supported. The description of the “extended tuner” would not 
	> have to re-list the operations defined by the “basic tuner”, 
	> but more importantly, the dual-tuner device could list just two 
	> ports of type “extended tuner”, and down-level clients could 
	> look at the derivation of the port type to recognize the “basic 
	> tuner”. 
	> 
Received on Thursday, 9 May 2002 01:27:22 GMT

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