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

RE: is the uniqueness constraint on top level components sufficient?

From: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 15:28:17 -0700
Message-ID: <7C083876C492EB4BAAF6B3AE0732970E0CAF9E7B@red-msg-08.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>, "Roberto Chinnici" <Roberto.Chinnici@Sun.COM>
Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sanjiva Weerawarana [mailto:sanjiva@watson.ibm.com] 
> Sent: 19 September 2003 04:59
> To: Martin Gudgin; David Orchard; Roberto Chinnici
> Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: Re: is the uniqueness constraint on top level 
> components sufficient?
> 
> "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com> writes:
> > 
> > The spec currently says ( for interfaces, for example )
> > 
> > For each interface component in the {interfaces} property of a 
> > definitions container the combination of {name} and {target 
> namespace} 
> > properties must be unique.
> > 
> > There is only ever one definitions container. Therefore 
> there is only 
> > one {interfaces} property. Therefore interfaces MUST all 
> have unique 
> > Qnames. If they don't it's an error and the WSDL parser should 
> > catch-fire-and-die.
> 
> Agreed; WSDL parsers are not the ones who have the problem 
> I'm trying to solve.

Then whose problem are you trying to solve?

> 
> > I don't understand what it is you want to change.
> 
> The wording in the spec does not guarantee that there MUST 
> only be exactly one Interface component with a given QName. 

Yes it does.

> 
> Maybe I'm just being retarted and not seeing that there's no 
> problem, but what I had in mind was to add a statement like 
> the following somewhere:
> 
>     "The QName identifying any top level Interface, Binding or 
>      Service component MUST be unique from amongst all similar
>      components. That is, two different top level components of
>      the same kind MUST NOT share the same QName. However, two
>      components of different kinds MAY have the same QName."

I do not see a substantive difference between the text you have above
and the separate statements about interface, binding and service:

	For each interface component in the {interfaces} property of 
	a definitions container the combination of {name} and {target 
	namespace} properties must be unique.

	For each binding component in the {bindings} property of a 
	definitions container the combination of {name} and {target 
	namespace} properties must be unique.

	For each service component in the {services} property of 
	a definitions container the combination of {name} and {target 
	namespace} properties must be unique.


Gudge
Received on Friday, 19 September 2003 18:28:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:26 GMT