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

Re: Issue 212: binding defaulting clarification

From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 21:19:04 +0600
Message-ID: <054301c45935$6d4b32c0$9f484109@LANKABOOK>
To: "Tom Jordahl" <tomj@macromedia.com>, "'Mark Nottingham'" <mark.nottingham@bea.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

+1!

Sanjiva "No more work for the editors" Weerawarana.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tom Jordahl" <tomj@macromedia.com>
To: "'Mark Nottingham'" <mark.nottingham@bea.com>; <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2004 7:55 PM
Subject: RE: Issue 212: binding defaulting clarification


>
> > I recommend that Issue 212 be dropped with no action, because
> > the approach proposed for it is less powerful than that described in
> > part 3.
>
> +1
>
> Thanks Mark, for researching this carefully.
>
> It also validates the fact that I was not just being paranoid for
wondering
> if your proposal conflicted with the binding defaults we had already set
up.
> :-)
>
> --
> Tom "Just say no" Jordahl
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Mark Nottingham
> Sent: Monday, June 21, 2004 8:09 PM
> To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: Issue 212: binding defaulting clarification
>
>
> One of the concerns raised regarding the proposed resolution to issue
> 212 was that there might be a conflict or misalignment between this
> proposal and the defaulting strategy described in part 3. Because I was
> reviewing the documents part-by-part when making these comments, I
> wasn't aware of them, and I believe this is a legitimate concern.
>
> Weighing the two approaches, part 3's is attractive because allows
> selectivity; i.e., one can specify some operation-specific properties,
> while still falling back to defaults for other properties in the same
> operation.
>
> However, the approach taken in part three requires that every defined
> property specify a defaulting syntax; if it does not, there is no way
> to default that property, and properties will need to be duplicated
> throughout the different components of the binding.
>
> The approach proposed for issue 212, on the other hand, is not
> selective; if you specify anything about an operation, the defaulting
> mechanism described no longer applies to that operation as a whole.
> However, there is no special accommodation required for properties to
> use this mechanism, unlike that described in part 3.
>
> It might be possible to design a third option that is both selective
> and generic with respect to properties, but I'm concerned that the
> rules for such a defaulting scheme would be unnecessarily complex and
> therefore confusing.
>
> As a result, unless the WG is interested in developing this third
> option, I recommend that Issue 212 be dropped with no action, because
> the approach proposed for it is less powerful than that described in
> part 3.
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham   Principal Technologist
> Office of the CTO   BEA Systems
Received on Wednesday, 23 June 2004 11:19:19 GMT

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