W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > April 2003

RE: "recursive" interface inheritance

From: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 14:16:54 -0700
Message-ID: <7C083876C492EB4BAAF6B3AE0732970E0B4F0019@red-msg-08.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

+1

Gudge 

> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Sanjiva Weerawarana
> Sent: 30 April 2003 12:19
> To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> 
> 
> I would think that we should disallow circular inheritance 
> like what you indicate. I believe the wording was put into 
> support "diamond" inheritance where are single interface 
> inherits the same super interface via two or more inheritance paths.
> 
> Sanjiva.
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Liu, Kevin" <kevin.liu@sap.com>
> To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
> Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2003 1:12 AM
> Subject: "recursive" interface inheritance
> 
> 
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > The current editor draft of part 1 spec [1] reads like that 
> extensions 
> > can
> be layered, but it doesn't say anything about if an interface 
> can appear multiple times in the inheritance hierarchy, for 
> example,  is it legal for interface A to extend interface B 
> and C, while B extends A,  C extends B,
> > and so on? For lack of good terms, I call it "recursive" 
> inheritance.
> >
> > We did discuss how to handle operation name conflicts, and added the
> following rule: " In cases where, due to a interface 
> extending one or more other interfaces, two or more interface 
> operation components have the same value for their {name} and 
> {target namespace} properties, then the component
> > models of those interface operation components MUST be 
> equivalent (see
> 2.15 Equivalence of components)If the interface operation 
> components are equivalent then they are considered to 
> collapse into a single component. It is an error if two 
> interface operation components have the same value for their
> > {name} and {target namespace} properties but are not equivalent".
> >
> > "recursive" inheritance may be considered as a special situation for
> operation name conflicts.  But I don't think it's the 
> intention of this group to allow "recursive" inheritance. If 
> the group agree, It would be helpful to make it explicit in the spec:
> > -  layered extension should be allowed
> > - "recursive" inheritance should be disallowed.
> >
> > [1]
> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl12/wsdl12
> .html#Interfac
> e
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Kevin
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 30 April 2003 17:21:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:23 GMT