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: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 11:14:30 +0600
Message-ID: <0cab01c46ee1$9ba44eb0$2e694109@LANKABOOK>
To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

Sorry .. my mistake. +1 to what you guys are suggesting to do!

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 11:33 PM
Subject: Re: Part 1: Component reference vs. QName


> 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 Wednesday, 21 July 2004 01:27:56 GMT

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