W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > July 2004

Re: "operation name" .. an alternate proposal

From: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 08 Jul 2004 15:42:13 -0400
To: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Message-Id: <1089315732.1876.97.camel@chacal>

I would note that there is an other solution:
-add the following entries in the table C.2 Fragment Identifiers of Part
Construct: in
x: {name} property of interface
y: {name} property of operation

Construct: out
x: {name} property of interface
y: {name} property of operation

-point your action attribute to the constructs in, out, and fault
provided in table C.2. (you might want to have in-fault, and out-fault
in table C.2 instead of fault).

- do the binding to SOAP as your proposed.

In other words, I'm proposing not to reinvent a URI mapping, but improve
and reuse the existing one.

Received on Thursday, 8 July 2004 15:42:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:54:49 UTC