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

RE: eliminating <message>: a few additional thoughts

From: Savas Parastatidis <Savas.Parastatidis@newcastle.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 18:09:38 +0100
Message-ID: <BC28A9E979C56C44BCBC2DED313A447001EC329E@bond.ncl.ac.uk>
To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

Sanjiva,

[snip]

> 
> (Going further back in my original note)
> 
> > Basically that means we drop the nested anonymous complexType
> > inclusion capability. The syntax would then be:
> >
> > <operation name="ncname">
> >     <input (element|body)="qname" [headers="list-of-qnames"]/>
> >     <output (element|body)="qname" [headers="list-of-qnames"]/>
> > </operation>
> >
> > If @element is used then only that element will appear in the
> > body. If @body is used then that's the type representing all
> > of body content, i.e., the type of soap:Body in the case of SOAP.
> 
> I like this approach, but I'm am a bit concerned that the subtlety
> of @element vs. @body may not be clear to most. Note that I didn't
> use @type for @body for a reason: doing so would give the casual
> reader the feeling that we've retained the part/@type vs.
part/@element
> distinction and of course that's complete wrong!
> 
> To reiterate: In the SOAP case, @element refers to a SINGLE
> element inside <soap:Body>. That is what I believe the 80-20
> case for SOAP: the body only contains one and only one element.
> In the non-SOAP case, one can bind the single element or
> the multiple things inside the complex type any way they
> wish.
> 

Wouldn't it be better if you kept @body instead of @element and
introduced the additional restriction of @body only referring to a
complexType? That way you could capture both cases... One could define a
complexType with only one element (most SOAP cases, as you suggested) or
one could define a complexTypes with multiple elements (the first
example in the SOAP 1.2 has two elements in the body). Keeping @element
restricts what people can do, which is going to be more confusing to
people who read the SOAP spec (why can't I have multiple elements in the
SOAP body you say? Surely, not because I couldn't describe it at the
interface level.) 

Of course, now, you always have to define global complexTypes that are
used for @body but, IMHO, that's fine.

 [snip]


Also, as I suggested in one of my responses to your original message, I
believe that the use of @body should be optional. One may want to define
a protocol where only headers are used. In your original syntax you had
that but through the simplifications it got lost. 

<operation name="ncname">
   <input [body="qname"] [headers="list-of-qnames"]/>
   <output [body="qname"] [headers="list-of-qnames"]/>
</operation>

Where the qname in @body MUST refer to a complexType.


What do you think? (As always, it may be the case that I have completely
misunderstood this :-)

.savas.
Received on Monday, 21 July 2003 13:09:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:25 GMT