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

Re: recap of issue 51 (was: Agenda for 5 Sept 2002 WS Description WG - recap of issue 51)

From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 16:39:23 +0200
Message-ID: <3D776C9B.5000802@crf.canon.fr>
To: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
CC: Liu Kevin <kevin.liu@sap.com>, WS Description WG <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

Ah, ok, yes, the implication was not obvious. I think we should 
not disallow these applications that carry multiple separate 
entities in separate body blocks.

Regards,

Jean-Jacques.

Jacek Kopecky wrote:
>  Jean-Jacques, 8-)
>  I was only wondering if this was really the intention, because I felt
> that this implication was not obvious.
>  I can see it both ways - keeping one soap:body element (because a Body
> is one thing) or allowing multiple soap:body elements (to simplify some
> applications that really do carry multiple separate and different pieces
> of data in SOAP Body).
>  Best regards,
> 
>                    Jacek Kopecky
> 
>                    Senior Architect, Systinet Corporation
>                    http://www.systinet.com/
> 
> 
> On Thu, 2002-09-05 at 15:18, Jean-Jacques Moreau wrote:
> 
>>Would this be a real problem? I can see how I could reuse code if 
>>this change was made; today, I cannot. Also, I am unable today to 
>>specify properties separately for each body block.
>>
>>What do you think?
>>
>>Jacek Kopecky wrote:
>>
>>> Jean-Jacques,
>>> renaming soap:body/@parts to soap:body/@part would necessitate that we
>>>also allow multiple soap:body elements in wsdl:input|output elements,
>>>which is not currently allowed.
>>> I wonder whether this is your intention?
>>
> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 5 September 2002 10:39:24 GMT

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