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

Re: equivalence of interface operations

From: Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 10:38:05 -0400
To: sakatayu@nttdata.co.jp
Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org, www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFA1401EB2.C8148577-ON85256D57.004F019A@torolab.ibm.com>

You are asking for operator overloading, i.e. the ability to distinguish 
operations that have the same name but different inputs. The WG decided to 
not allow that. 

If you have a logical operation that can take different inputs, then you 
can model it as one operation that takes a complex type based on <choice>. 

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Jun/0142.html

--Arthur Ryman

Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
07/01/2003 09:07 PM

        To:     www-ws-desc@w3.org
        Subject:        equivalence of interface operations


Hi, all.

Now  I try to  understand WSDL 1.2 Core Language.
I have a comment about equivalence of interface operations.

The document says in 2.7.1,"For each interface operation component in 
the {operations} property of an interface component the combination of 
{name} and {target namespace} properties must be unique."

So in this specification, we can't define operations whose {name} and 
{taenget namespace} are same but input or output are different.

Besides, it also describes in 2.15, that {name} and {taenget namespace} 
is enough information to verify two operations are syntactically same 
(that is ,their messages, interfaces, bindings and services are same) .

But I think it may be not convenient when we want to define semantically 
same operations with differenet message and this specification had 
better allow to define multiple operations whose {name} and {target 
namespace} are same.

How about it?


NTT Data Corporation
Yuji Sakata
E-Mail: sakatayu@nttdata.co.jp
Received on Wednesday, 2 July 2003 10:55:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:54:43 UTC