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


From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 06:15:35 +0600
Message-ID: <00fb01c270bb$53543ce0$8100a8c0@lankabook2>
To: "WS-Desc WG \(Public\)" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

I heard from Arthur that there was a proposal to do include/import
following the XSD approach precisely. Before getting to that, I'd
to see an answer to the following which I sent a few days ago:

> > "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com> writes:
> > I think the cleanest solution is to spec wsdl:import and wsdl:include
> > the same way the xsd versions work. That way things work the same way in
> > the wsdl: section of the document as they do in any xsd: sections of the
> > document.
> Assuming that you guys had good rationale for creating two different
> constructs for the two cases in XSD, I would have to agree.
> I was against <include> earlier on the basis that one import/include
> mechanism has been sufficient in programming languages (java, c#, c++,
> etc.). Java for example does not require imports for stuff
> in the same package (namespace) - however, the location is
> implied in that case .. so the analogy isn't exact. My personal
> preference would be to use one construct with location requiredness
> defined in terms of namespace sameness, but the XSD experience
> seems to have some reasons for not going that way.

Gudge, would you be able to tell us (me) why XSD chose to use
two language constructs instead of one for the include/import


Received on Thursday, 10 October 2002 20:17:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:54:40 UTC