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

Re: Part 1: Component reference vs. QName

From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 21:05:27 +0600
Message-ID: <08ea01c46da1$de06db10$2e694109@LANKABOOK>
To: "Roberto Chinnici" <Roberto.Chinnici@Sun.COM>
Cc: "Asir Vedamuthu" <asirv@webmethods.com>, <paul.downey@bt.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

Right, but spse

    interface x:I1 extends y:I2 [xmlns:x=foo1, xmlns:y=foo2]

then the binding which specifies a binding for x:I1 must also
bind the operations/faults in y:I2 .. which have a different TNS.

Sanjiva.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Roberto Chinnici" <Roberto.Chinnici@Sun.COM>
To: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Cc: "Asir Vedamuthu" <asirv@webmethods.com>; <paul.downey@bt.com>;
<www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 8:36 PM
Subject: Re: Part 1: Component reference vs. QName


> How? In the context of an interface, operations and faults are uniquely
> identified by a qname, so qname-typed references to operation/fault
> components and the components themselves are interchangeable.
>
> Roberto
>
>
> Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
> > Didn't you forget our wonderful inheritance model???
> >
> > Sanjiva.
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: "Roberto Chinnici" <Roberto.Chinnici@Sun.COM>
> > To: "Asir Vedamuthu" <asirv@webmethods.com>
> > Cc: <paul.downey@bt.com>; <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
> > Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 4:17 AM
> > Subject: Re: Part 1: Component reference vs. QName
> >
> >
> >
> >>Asir,
> >>
> >>I was in the process of writing a thorough explanation of why the spec
> >>is the way it is, but I think you ran into a real issue.
> >>
> >>At some point we allowed "generic" binding components (i.e. those with
> >>an unspecified {interface} property) to contain Binding Fault and
> >>Binding Operation components, but that functionality is gone (see third
> >>paragraph of section 2.9.1). The use of QNames to refer to Interface
> >>Fault/Operation(s) from in Binding Fault/Operation(s) is a vestige of
> >>those days.
> >>
> >>As things stand now, this use of QNames is inconsistent with the rest
> >>of the specification, so I'd be in favor of using actual components
> >>instead.
> >>
> >>Unless I'm missing something, of course!
> >>
> >>Roberto
> >>
> >>
> >>Asir Vedamuthu wrote:
> >>
> >>>Paul,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>There was some discussion of this following the proposal to
> >>>>hoist faults:
> >>>>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jan/0062.html
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Thank you. I read this thread. My question is not at the XML
> >
> > representation
> >
> >>>level but, at the -component- level. Let me quote from part 1,
> >>>
> >>>"{fault reference} REQUIRED. A wsdls:QName as defined by 2.15.5 QName
> >
> > Type
> >
> >>>which refers to an Interface Fault component in the {faults} property
of
> >
> > the
> >
> >>>Interface component identified by the {interface} property of the
parent
> >>>Binding component. This is the Interface Fault component for which
> >
> > binding
> >
> >>>information is being specified." [1]
> >>>
> >>>Let me re-state my question. {fault reference} property appears to be a
> >>>component reference. Per part 1, {fault reference} property is a
> >>>wsdls:QName.  Thus, the following two properties stand out,
> >>>
> >>>(a) Binding Fault Component.{fault reference}
> >>>(b) Binding Operation Component.{operation reference}
> >>>
> >>>Their values are of type wsdls:QName instead of Interface
> >
> > Fault/Operation
> >
> >>>component. Is that intentional?
> >>>
> >>>[1]
> >>>
> >
> >
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20.html?content-
> >
> >>>type=text/html%3B0charset=utf-8#Binding_Fault_details
> >>>
> >>>Asir
> >>>
> >>>-----Original Message-----
> >>>From: paul.downey@bt.com [mailto:paul.downey@bt.com]
> >>>Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2004 9:41 AM
> >>>To: asirv@webmethods.com; www-ws-desc@w3.org
> >>>Subject: RE: Part 1: Component reference vs. QName
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Asir,
> >>>
> >>>AIUI fault and operations are identified using ncnames, but referenced
> >>>using qnames, since the same fault name may exist in one or more
> >
> > interface.
> >
> >>>There was some discussion of this following the proposal to hoist
> >
> > faults:
> >
> >>>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jan/0062.html
> >>>
> >>>HTH
> >>>Paul
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>-----Original Message-----
> >>>From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]On
> >>>Behalf Of Asir Vedamuthu
> >>>Sent: 15 July 2004 13:39
> >>>To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> >>>Subject: Part 1: Component reference vs. QName
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>In part 1 component model, the following properties (see below) appear
> >
> > to be
> >
> >>>component references but, they are described as QNames. Is that
> >
> > intentional?
> >
> >>>- Binding Fault Component.{fault reference} [1]
> >>>- Binding Operation Component.{operation reference} [2]
> >>>
> >>>[1]
> >>>
> >
> >
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20.html?content-
> >
> >>>type=text/html%3B0charset=utf-8#Binding_Fault_details
> >>>
> >>>[2]
> >>>
> >
> >
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20.html?content-
> >
> >>>type=text/html%3B0charset=utf-8#Binding_Operation_details
> >>>
> >>>Regards,
> >>>Asir S Vedamuthu
> >>>asirv at webmethods dot com
> >>>http://www.webmethods.com/
Received on Monday, 19 July 2004 11:06:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:32 GMT