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

RE: operation name uniqueness draft available

From: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 06:58:50 -0800
Message-ID: <92456F6B84D1324C943905BEEAE0278E02D30BB2@RED-MSG-10.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, "Steve Graham" <sggraham@us.ibm.com>
Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sanjiva Weerawarana [mailto:sanjiva@watson.ibm.com] 
> Sent: 24 January 2003 13:34
> To: Martin Gudgin; Steve Graham
> Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: Re: operation name uniqueness draft available
> 
> 
> "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com> writes:
> > <w:service name='Bar' >
> >   <w:port name='portForA' binding='A' ... />
> >   <w:port name='portForB' binding='B' ... />
> >   <w:port name='portForC' binding='C' ... />
> > /w:service>
> 
> Hmm. So the portTypes supported by Bar would be ptA, ptB and 
> ptC. However, Bar is a bit weird because it offers two 
> alternative implementations for ptA: via portForA or 
> portForC. Similarly for portType ptB.
> 
> Isn't that rather confusing/weird/not-quite-right?
> 
> Sanjiva.

Not as far as I'm concerned. There may be 2 implementations of A and B.
Or there may be 1 implementation available at 2 addresses. Or there may
be 1 implementation and 1 address if the same address information is
bound to each port. All of these seem perfectly reasonable to me.

Gudge
Received on Friday, 24 January 2003 09:59:31 GMT

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