- From: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
- Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 06:58:50 -0800
- 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 UTC