Re: Proposal: abstract faults

+1 to Amy - QNames would be better.

--Glen

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Amelia A Lewis" <alewis@tibco.com>
To: <paul.downey@bt.com>
Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 12:44 PM
Subject: Re: Proposal: abstract faults


> 
> On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:37:32 +0000
> paul.downey@bt.com wrote:
> 
> > TBH I'd prefer to avoid QNames if at all possible. I thought as there
> > was only one interface in a WSDL 2.0, an NCName was sufficient.
> 
> Huh?  Interface inheritance means that, in WSDL 2.0, you could have
> lots&lots (that's more than "many", I think) of interfaces in a single
> document.  And lots&lots&lots more once you start importing and
> including.
> 
> > *but* for orthogonality the fault name should be of the same type as
> > operation name in the <binding>. Looking at the <binding>, i notice
> > the operation name is linked to the interface using a QName. 
> > 
> > Does that mean that a binding can refer to an operation in another
> > WSDL ?
> 
> In an imported or included WSDL, you mean?  Yes.  Note that import
> requires a different namespace than the definitions/@targetNamespace of
> the current WSDL.
> 
> Amy!
> -- 
> Amelia A. Lewis
> Architect, TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc.
> alewis@tibco.com
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 18 December 2003 18:09:07 UTC