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

Re: help with incorporating operation name v3 proposal (issue 168)

From: Amelia A Lewis <alewis@tibco.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 10:59:51 -0400
To: Glen Daniels <gdaniels@sonicsoftware.com>
Cc: dorchard@bea.com, www-ws-desc@w3.org
Message-id: <20040727105951.42de98aa.alewis@tibco.com>

On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 18:16:30 -0400
Glen Daniels <gdaniels@sonicsoftware.com> wrote:
> I would think the tests would be something like:
> 
> - 1 -
> Define a WSDL with unique GEDs, processor does fine
> 
> - 2 -
> Define a WSDL with non-unique GEDs and no extensions, processor barfs
> 
> - 3 -
> Define an feature "http://www.w3.org/wsdl/testFeature" which "satisfies
> the requirement" (in other words this feature simply exists for this
> test).
> 
> Define a WSDL with non-unique GEDs which uses the above feature in the
> <interface>, processor does fine.

Exactly.  This is how an optional extension can be required to be
required, and how to code around it.

*sigh*  I really *shouldn't* point out that this is massively silly, since
it went through formal vote, but I really just can't resist.  Especially
when someone else is pointing out the absurdity straight-faced ("this
feature fulfills that requirement").

Amy!
-- 
Amelia A. Lewis
Senior Architect
TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc.
alewis@tibco.com
Received on Tuesday, 27 July 2004 11:01:31 GMT

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