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

Re: features and requiredness

From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 23:40:52 +0600
Message-ID: <0a5401c40b7d$dccc71a0$02c8a8c0@watson.ibm.com>
To: "Glen Daniels" <gdaniels@sonicsoftware.com>
Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

Hi Glen,

> > I think these EDTODOs came from the discussion between Jonathan
> > and Glen about F&P, right? Guys, did you mean feature/@required
> > when the above says wsdl:required?
>
> Absolutely, yes.  This was apparently a misunderstanding.

So should the EDTODO automatically transfer to this or do we
need further discussion? Jonathan?

> We could do that for a given component, but you still need to talk about
it
> when you have:
>
> <interface name="iSvc">
>  <feature uri="foo:feature1" required="true"/>
> </interface>
> <binding interface="iSvc">
>  <feature uri="foo:feature1" required="false"/>
> </binding>

Where in the spec say how these things are spsed to be combined? Without
that its hard to say what to do if what's being combined has different
@required values. If you look at the features property of binding
for example it doesn't say anything about having to compose the
properties. What should it say?

> > Finally, does the same thing need to be done for property/@required?
>
> I still don't think that property/@required really makes any sense, but if
> we have it it should have the same semantics (an in-scope
> property/@required="true" trumps a "false").

Given there's no assigned task to put this in I won't do it.

Sanjiva.
Received on Tuesday, 16 March 2004 12:41:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:30 GMT