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

RE: Port type extension proposal

From: Sedukhin, Igor <Igor.Sedukhin@ca.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 12:02:22 -0400
Message-ID: <87527035FDD42A428221FA578D4A9A5B99158A@usilms24.ca.com>
To: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

Certainly +1 to the first two ammendments from Sanjiva.

-- Igor Sedukhin .. (igor.sedukhin@ca.com)
-- (631) 342-4325 .. 1 CA Plaza, Islandia, NY 11788

-----Original Message-----
From: Sanjiva Weerawarana [mailto:sanjiva@watson.ibm.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 12:40 PM
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.

- 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>

- 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? 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'll probably have more comments later .. but nice start!


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 6:25 AM
Subject: Port type extension proposal

> The port type extension proposal is at[1]. I have had some feedback 
> from members of the task force ( Steve, Arthur, Joyce, William ) which

> I have yet to incorporate but I thought it better to get the proposal 
> on the table for a wider audience. I hope to incorporate the feedback 
> received so far later this week. Any further feedback is, of course, 
> very welcome.
> The draft is marked up with new text shown in green highlight and 
> deleted text shown in red strikeout.
> Gudge
> [1] 
> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl12/wsdl12.ptext.s
> er
> vice.html
Received on Tuesday, 29 October 2002 18:36:39 UTC

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