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

RE: Revised property binding extensions proposal

From: Don Mullen <donmullen@tibco.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 14:25:33 -0500
Message-ID: <339902DC0E58D411986A00B0D03D843201B24776@extmail.rtp.tibco.com>
To: "'Glen Daniels'" <gdaniels@macromedia.com>
Cc: Amy Lewis <alewis@tibco.com>, www-ws-desc@w3.org


Glen:

I think I understand your objections regarding added complexity to WSDL.
From what I understand of what you said in today's call, you feel that
binding specifications will be defined and that implementations will
hard-code support of these bindings.  If someone needs to teak a binding,
they would need to either change the specification (and therefore also
affect change in all the implementations), or write a new binding with the
tweaks and encourage implementors to support the new binding.  Is that fair,
or am I missing something?   If that's the case, then I would think only a
small set of bindings will be supported, and the new, tweaked bindings will
not be interoperable.  I would challenge Amy to come up with a sufficient
use-case that would require minor binding changes that need to be
interoperable.

Don

-----Original Message-----
From: Amelia A Lewis [mailto:alewis@tibco.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 1:47 PM
To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Subject: Revised property binding extensions proposal


Umm, well.  Here's the *revised* revised property binding proposal, this
time printed in *visible* ink.  Sometimes one can take confidentiality
too far ....

Oh, and I suppose I should warn the timid that the formality level in
the document is dropping as well, to some degree.  We can fix that by
reading many stories by Ernest Bramah and applying the principles of
locution demonstrated therein.

Heyas,

Here's the property binding proposal, revised per comments.  This
removes the "open value" stuff, changes the values of some attributes
(from string or boolean to QName or enumeration), adds an issues
section.  Most importantly, it tries to pick up the idea of defining
property binding information externally to the WSDL, and supply syntax
both for the definitions, and for the references.  The reference
mechanism includes a means of combining external definitions, which is
deliberately kept simple (on the grounds that the per-service overrides
can supply needed complexity).  The referenced definitions now join in
the scoping rules for property bindings as well.

Feedback, of course, is most welcome.

An example usage is (still!) in progress, illustrating the mechanism by
using the alternative email binding proposals.  Added to the list of
useful items to produce is a similar example for the http binding.

Amy!
-- 
Amelia A. Lewis
Architect, TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc.
alewis@tibco.com
Received on Thursday, 31 October 2002 14:27:58 GMT

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