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

RE: proposal: make binding/operation/(input|output)/@messageLabel optional

From: <paul.downey@bt.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 15:52:36 -0000
Message-ID: <2B7789AAED12954AAD214AEAC13ACCEF1A032DAD@i2km02-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net>
To: <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, <alewis@tibco.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

+1 and thanks to Sanjiva and Amy!

Paul

-----Original Message-----
From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]On
Behalf Of Sanjiva Weerawarana
Sent: 18 March 2004 15:40
To: Downey,PS,Paul,XSJ67A C; www-ws-desc@w3.org
Subject: Re: proposal: make
binding/operation/(input|output)/@messageLabel optional



Hi Paul,

> i'm happy to +1 this so long as the default values for the 
> messageLabel attribute are 'obvious'. 

There are no defaults. What we've done in operation/{input,output}
is allow users to not have to specify something that can be
computed very easily. 

Basically if the MEP has exactly one input message then the
messageLabel can be skipped for the input because specifying
the MEP implies the label.

Similarly for output.

[See the text for the Message Reference component and you'll
see how its done.]

> That is I don't want to have to interpret complex rules to infer the 
> default values for these attributes based upon the presence or order 
> of input and output elements within a binding/operation. 

No complex rules!

> I'm puzzled about the impact on each of the MEPs identified in part 2
> as well as any MEPs added in the future. What would tip the balance 
> for me is a simple cheat-sheet: a table of the possible default 
> messageLabel default values being considered. 

The rule we've adopted works for *any* MEP which has only one message
in a given direction. Otherwise you *have to* indicate the label.

Sanjiva.
Received on Thursday, 18 March 2004 10:53:09 GMT

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