Re: Incorporating Service References in Part1

"Umit Yalcinalp" <umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com> writes:
> 
> As I was re-reading the specification, it has come to my attention that 
> the current specification does not reflect the decisions we made at the 
> last f2f[1]. I should add a clarification to the last resolution in [1] 
> because we have agreed that wsdl:ServiceType and derived types from it 
> are allowed to be a reference per discussions on Roberto's analysis [2] 
> in order to fix interface attribute.

Hmm. I don't recall us deciding to accept the service reference approach
you were advocating .. but I will go back and read the minute to 
refresh my memory (still getting back to normal from the break :)).

> I would like to ask the editors of Part 1 as well as the Primer to 
> clarify who is chartered to do provide the writeups and the timelines we 
> can expect to see the changes.  I will be more than happy to provide the 
> paragraph and/or examples in question, if need be.

Also note that the publication was up-to-date to the point that
the editors could manage during the available timeframe. I think 
you know that .. 

> It may well be that the service refs are already integrated to some 
> version that is in the repository, but I am not seeing them as the URL 
> from the wg's page is to the editor's copy (dated 2004/01/06) and that 
> document does not define service references. If that is the case, can 
> the wg's page be updated to reflect the correct URL please. 

AFAIK there's nothing other than the published versions and the 
editor's drafts.

Sanjiva.

Received on Wednesday, 14 January 2004 22:01:38 UTC