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

RE: Updated portTypeExtension proposal

From: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 17:30:40 -0700
Message-ID: <92456F6B84D1324C943905BEEAE0278E02D308D4@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: 11 October 2002 19:21
> To: Martin Gudgin; www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Updated portTypeExtension proposal
> 
> 
> Hi Gudge,
> 
> This is looking better .. a few comments on syntax (more on 
> other parts later).
> 
> I prefer:
> 
>     <portType name="ncname" extends="list-of-qnames">
>         ...
>     </portType>
> 
> rather than the "bases" attribute. 

Yeah, we talked on the call about working on the names later in the life
of the spec so that we can come up with a consistent set when things are
more stable.

> 
> Also, similarly for the service:
> 
>     <service implements="list-of-qnames">
>         ...
>     </service>

Err, there is no such attribute on service ( only has a name attributes
). The mapping for the port types property now drills down via the
binding attribute on the port element. This makes sure things are
internally consistent thus avoiding possible mistakes where the list of
port types in an 'implements' attribute doesn't match the list of port
types you can actually get to via the bindings. It also avoids having to
state such a constraint in the spec.

Gudge
Received on Friday, 11 October 2002 20:31:13 GMT

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