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

Re: More thoughts on making binding detail definition reusable

From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
Date: 28 Jan 2003 13:12:12 +0100
To: "Liu, Kevin" <kevin.liu@sap.com>
Cc: "'www-ws-desc@w3.org'" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1043755932.2411.10.camel@krava.in.idoox.com>

Kevin,

the original Sanjiva's proposal that started the discussions (IIRC) [1]
also allowed specifying multiple bindingTBDs (in your terminology) to be
used in a concrete binding. I think the reasons for this were good, and
for example Jean-Jacques's favourite split of serialization and protocol
bindings would be doable (a binding referencing a serialization
bindingTBD and a protocol bindingTBD).

So in terms of syntax, the change to your proposal would look like

<binding name="ncname" type = "qname" TBD = "list of qnames">* 
  <operation name="ncname"? TBDs = "list of qnames">*
    <input TBDs = "list of qnames"/>
    <output TBDs = "list of qnames"/>
    <fault name="qname"? TBDs = "list of qnames">
  </operation>
</binding>

i.e. changing the new attribute's value to a list of qnames.

Also, I noticed that operation name is optional in your structure - have
I missed something? I think the name is mandatory.

Best regards,

                   Jacek Kopecky

                   Senior Architect, Systinet Corporation
                   http://www.systinet.com/


[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Jul/att-0117/01-bindings-2002-07-24.html
Received on Tuesday, 28 January 2003 07:13:08 GMT

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