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

RE: Proposal: abstract faults

From: <paul.downey@bt.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 09:33:06 -0000
Message-ID: <2B7789AAED12954AAD214AEAC13ACCEF05E201E1@i2km02-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net>
To: <alewis@tibco.com>
Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

OK Amy, i'm still learning! QNames it is!

Paul

-----Original Message-----
From: Amelia A Lewis [mailto:alewis@tibco.com]
Sent: 18 December 2003 17:44
To: Downey,PS,Paul,XSJ67A C
Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
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 Friday, 19 December 2003 04:33:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:27 GMT