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

RE: Issue with binding message references in the abstract component model

From: Jeffrey Schlimmer <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2003 21:33:46 -0700
Message-ID: <DDE1793D7266AD488BB4F5E8D38EACB802F26841@WIN-MSG-10.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
To: "Roberto Chinnici" <Roberto.Chinnici@Sun.COM>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

+1 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]
On
> Behalf Of Roberto Chinnici
> Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 3:49 PM
> To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: Issue with binding message references in the abstract
component
> model
> 
> 
> Following the WG's decision to rename the "name" attribute of the
> wsdl:input and wsdl:output elements to "messageReference", and
> correspondingly to rename the {name} property of the message
> reference component to {messageReference}, we ended up with a
> mismatch between the interface-level message reference components
> and the binding-level ones.
> 
> At the interface level, we have a message reference component with
> a {messageReference} property and a fault reference component with
> a {name} property. Although the latter needs more work to bring it
> into the new brave message-free world, I assume we won't modify its
> {name} property; unlike the old message reference component's {name},
> the {name} of a fault reference component is indeed arbitrarily
> chosen by the WSDL author and it doesn't depend on the MEP in use.
> 
> But at the binding level, we have just one component, the binding
> message reference component. Since it has a {name} property,
> you can readily see that there is a mismatch between it and its
> interface-level equivalents.
> 
> Here are some visuals:
> 
> <interface>
>    <operation>
>      <input messageReference="A" body="ns:foo"/>
>      <output messageReference="B" body="ns:bar"/>
>      <outfault name="MyFault" messages="ns:fault1 ns:fault2"/>
>    </operation>
> </interface>
> 
> <binding>
>    <operation>
>      <input name="A"/>
>      <output name="B"/>
>      <outfault name="MyFault"/>
>    </operation>
> </binding>
> 
> In order to fix this, I think that we should add a binding fault
> reference component (pretty much identical to the existing binding
> message reference component), and rename the {name} property of
> the binding message reference component to {messageReference}, so
> as to match the interface. Then the sample binding would become:
> 
> <binding>
>    <operation>
>      <input messageReference="A"/>
>      <output messageReference="B"/>
>      <outfault name="MyFault"/>
>    </operation>
> </binding>
> 
> I'd also expect the messageReference attribute on the binding input
> element to be optional, just like for an interface operation's input.
> 
> Roberto
> 
> --
> Roberto Chinnici
> Java Web Services
> Sun Microsystems, Inc.
> roberto.chinnici@sun.com
> 
Received on Sunday, 21 September 2003 00:33:07 GMT

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