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

RE: On removing messages

From: Dale Moberg <dmoberg@cyclonecommerce.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 08:40:53 -0700
Message-ID: <9551E76040A2604BBD331F3024BFEA4801598D06@SEMINOLEVS2.cyclonecommerce.com>
To: "FABLET Youenn" <youenn.fablet@crf.canon.fr>, "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Cc: "Roberto Chinnici" <roberto.chinnici@sun.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>, "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Gudge expressed "reservations" in a forceful way about re-inventing the
cardinality apparatus within input,output, and fault.
 
Also the wsdl-MEP combinatorics did not fit with the repeated input
element. That would be easily correctable, though, if input, output (and
fault?) were allowed to have content models with repeated "part" EIIs.
 
So, my scorecard now shows that the distaste for repeating the
cardinality apparatus in attributes on input, etc as being the main
obstacle to the Sanjiva compromise approach. Others may be tracking
different statistics though.
 
Dale Moberg

	-----Original Message-----
	From: FABLET Youenn [mailto:youenn.fablet@crf.canon.fr] 
	Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 12:38 AM
	To: Sanjiva Weerawarana
	Cc: Roberto Chinnici; www-ws-desc@w3.org; Jean-Jacques Moreau
	Subject: Re: On removing messages
	
	


	Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
	

		"FABLET Youenn" youenn.fablet@crf.canon.fr writes:
		  

			IMHO, we are searching for a construct quite
similar to the xsd:element 
			but a little bit more constrained (fewer
properties, no xml-schema 
			children in it) and with a sligthly different
semantic.
			Would it better to add another construct for the
purpose of clarity, 
			readability and accuracy, the tradeoff being a
(small ?) increase of the 
			complexity ? I am not sure of the answer...
			Thoughts ?
			    

		
		;-) <wsdl:message> ;-)
		
		I am a bit surprised that the proposal I made for how to
eliminate 
		message is not interesting to more people. 

	At the F2F, there was a quick presentation of your proposal but
since you were not there and given the fact that it was (?) not in synch
with the mep thing at that time, it was difficult to discuss deeply your
proposal...
	

		Basically what I proposed
		allows one to use a single XSD element or type for the
80% case and
		IF ONE WISHES to document more than one input or output
element or type,
		then they can indicate it. That's a nice way to cleanly
support the
		attachment stuff, for example (such as additional XML
documents or
		GIF images people may want to send along with their SOAP
envelope).
		
		It seems like a middle-ground that allows the people
happy with just
		modeling the world with schema to do so, but allows
others to life
		happily too.
		
		Sanjiva.
		
		  
Received on Thursday, 6 February 2003 10:41:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:22 GMT