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

Re: features and requiredness

From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 01:19:13 +0600
Message-ID: <171e01c40d1d$e83bc3a0$02c8a8c0@watson.ibm.com>
To: "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>, "Umit Yalcinalp" <umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com>
Cc: "Glen Daniels" <gdaniels@sonicsoftware.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

We need to either adopt this or fix the draft - it talks about
F&P in <service> in the composition model and we currently
don't allow it in <service>. Something's gotta give.

Sanjiva.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>
To: "Umit Yalcinalp" <umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com>
Cc: "Glen Daniels" <gdaniels@sonicsoftware.com>; "Sanjiva Weerawarana"
<sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>; <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 11:03 PM
Subject: Re: features and requiredness


> +1 as well.
>
> Umit Yalcinalp wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Glen Daniels wrote:
> >
> >>>We don't currently allow features and props inside <service>.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>Ah, my bad.  I just went back and read the mail about that, and would
like
> >>to propose again (with feeling this time) that we support F&P inside
> >><service>.  I believe with the scoping rules laid out in the two
messages I
> >>sent, we have a solid enough foundation to clearly understand what this
> >>means (F&P are in scope for every interaction with that <service>).
> >>
> >>--Glen
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > +1, of course :-)
> >
> > --
> > Umit Yalcinalp
> > Consulting Member of Technical Staff
> > ORACLE
> > Phone: +1 650 607 6154
> > Email: umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com
> >
Received on Thursday, 18 March 2004 14:20:18 GMT

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