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

Re: Part 1: Component reference vs. QName

From: Roberto Chinnici <Roberto.Chinnici@Sun.COM>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 10:33:22 -0700
To: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Cc: Asir Vedamuthu <asirv@webmethods.com>, paul.downey@bt.com, www-ws-desc@w3.org
Message-id: <40FC05E2.8010500@sun.com>

We're not proposing to change the syntax, so you'd still be using
a @ref attribute of type xsd:QName to refer to operations/faults from
a binding.

The proposal is to change the component model so that the {operation reference}
property of the Binding Operation and the {fault reference} property of
Binding Fault would have the actual components as a value instead of a QName.
The motivation being that, because of the rules already in place, the current
QNames resolve uniquely to a component in _all_ cases, inheritance or not.

Roberto


Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
> 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 13:32:13 GMT

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