Re: features and requiredness

DONE.

Jonathan Marsh wrote:

> I added the issue "f&p at the service level" to the issues list (157).
> Can we adjust the composition model temporarily until we pick up this
> issue?
> 
> 
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]
> 
> On
> 
>>Behalf Of Sanjiva Weerawarana
>>Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 11:19 AM
>>To: Jean-Jacques Moreau; Umit Yalcinalp
>>Cc: Glen Daniels; www-ws-desc@w3.org
>>Subject: Re: features and requiredness
>>
>>
>>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 Friday, 19 March 2004 04:58:17 UTC