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

RE: Port type extension proposal

From: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 10:51:48 -0700
Message-ID: <92456F6B84D1324C943905BEEAE0278E02D3083F@RED-MSG-10.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sanjiva Weerawarana [mailto:sanjiva@watson.ibm.com]
> Sent: 02 October 2002 17:40
> To: Martin Gudgin; www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Port type extension proposal
> 
> 
> This looks quite reasonable. However, there are some major
> features that we (IBM) don't like:
> 
> - We need to have multiple portTypes per service, not just one. We
>   believe that different aspects of a service's function are best
>   modeled by different portTypes and it does not make sense to 
>   force one to combine all of them into one portType.

OK, I've just written up what I think the TF agreed. We need to think
carefully about what we want going forward.

> 
> - The service must indicate its "type": with portType inheritance
>   in place we (IBM) would prefer to have the service just indicate
>   the interfaces it supports:
>     <service implements="pt1 .. ptn"> ... </service>

Are you saying that you don't want port type B to inherit from port type
A but rather that a service would just say that it implements port type
A and port type B? 

> 
> - The semantics of inheritance needs to be defined more. What are
>   the rules for two operations of the same (local) name from two
>   inherited portTypes?

Currently the rule is as defined by:

'For each port type operation component in the {operations} property of
a port type component the {name} property must be unique.'

Which means it would be an error if port type B derived from port type A
and both port types had an operation called 'Foo'

> I guess the Java (and I assume C# too?) rule
>   of ignoring the namespace (package for Java) and just merging 
>   the local names will work. If there's a conflict then since we now
>   don't allow operation overloading, we must require all inherited 
>   operations of the same name to have the same "signature." Similarly
>   if the new portType defines an operation of a same ncname as one
>   from an inherited portType, then it must have the same signature
>   or its illegal.

I think I prefer the current formulation.

Gudge
Received on Wednesday, 2 October 2002 13:52:20 GMT

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