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

Re: features and requiredness

From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 09:51:55 +0100
Message-ID: <405811AB.8040106@crf.canon.fr>
To: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Cc: Glen Daniels <gdaniels@sonicsoftware.com>, www-ws-desc@w3.org

Down to your specifics: one option would be to do as for namespaces, the 
lower layer value overrides the higher level value. However, this looks 
quite complicated and unnecessary.

What about simply raising an error? This would be simple, and quite 
consistent with our inheritance model (everything allowed, but error 
upon conflic).

What do you think?

JJ.

Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:

>><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?
Received on Wednesday, 17 March 2004 03:53:09 GMT

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