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

Re: Issue 210: component equivalence

From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 09:34:21 +0600
Message-ID: <01d001c45809$d0649860$a7784109@LANKABOOK>
To: "Mark Nottingham" <mark.nottingham@bea.com>, "Roberto Chinnici" <Roberto.Chinnici@Sun.COM>
Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

And we could go one step further and state that its an error
for two components (of the same type) with the same name to be
different. That is, assert that name equiv must imply structural
equiv.

OTOH if that were not the world would be whacky; so mebbe no
need to say it at all.

Sanjiva.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mark Nottingham" <mark.nottingham@bea.com>
To: "Roberto Chinnici" <Roberto.Chinnici@Sun.COM>
Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2004 6:13 AM
Subject: Re: Issue 210: component equivalence


> 
> 
> On Jun 21, 2004, at 4:58 PM, Roberto Chinnici wrote:
> 
> > Given that different top-level components must have different names,
> > if you process a valid WSDL document and get some components out of it,
> > you can decide whether two top-level components are equivalent just
> > by comparing their {name} properties.
> 
> Oh, OK. how about:
> 
> --8<--
> Note that because different top-level components (e.g., interface, 
> binding and service) are required to have different names, it's 
> possible to determine whether two of a given type are equivalent by 
> examining their {name} and {target namespace} properties.
> -->8--
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> --
> Mark Nottingham   Principal Technologist
> Office of the CTO   BEA Systems
Received on Monday, 21 June 2004 23:34:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:31 GMT