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

Re: parameter order

From: Umit Yalcinalp <umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 11:51:26 -0800
Message-ID: <3F9EC8BE.4090403@oracle.com>
To: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Cc: Roberto Chinnici <Roberto.Chinnici@Sun.COM>, "'WS Description List'" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>


Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:

>>Same messages, different parameter orders.
>>    
>>
>
>While your interpretation of parameterOrder="" seems reasonable,
>I can't find anything in the WSDL 1.1 spec that implies this
>usage. Of course, WSDL 1.1 left a lot for the imagination ;-).
>
>If its parameterOrder we desire let's make that proposal. After
>all, its well-known already (well hated IMO, but that's my view)!
>
>Sanjiva.
>p.s.: Its hard to hold 4 arguments at once with the same subject;
>so I've taken the liberty of clarifying the subjects .. hope its
>ok ;-).
>
>
>  
>
I point out that you might have  missed the thread if indeed your desire 
is to talk about parameterorder.

A convention for introducing parameter order have been made. Please find 
it in [1]. It is not to introduce parameterOrder, but to introduce a 
convention based on the order of elements in the schema.

As a matter of fact, at last week's concall I presented these rules. We 
have agreed that these 4 rules were reasonable provided that they will 
be in two different buckets, one for schema and one for conventions. A 
proposal for that is in [2] which needs to be updated to reflect this.

I still have an action item to integrate the rules in [1] to my writeup 
in [2]. Please stay tuned.

--umit

[1]. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Oct/0058.html
[2]. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Oct/0057.html

-- 
Umit Yalcinalp                                  
Consulting Member of Technical Staff
ORACLE
Phone: +1 650 607 6154                          
Email: umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com
Received on Tuesday, 28 October 2003 14:51:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:27 GMT