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

RE: Adding binding infault/outfault components (LC55)

From: Liu, Kevin <kevin.liu@sap.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 18:20:03 +0100
Message-ID: <99CA63DD941EDC4EBA897048D9B0061D0B1C148B@uspalx20a.pal.sap.corp>
To: "'Asir Vedamuthu'" <asirv@webmethods.com>, "'Roberto Chinnici'" <Roberto.Chinnici@Sun.COM>, www-ws-desc@w3.org

Asir,

For your first proposal about adding a message reference to binding input/output, do you mean something like

<binding...>
..
   <operation ref="xs:QName" >
     <documentation />?

      <input ref= "xs:Qname" messageLabel="xs:NCName"? >
        <documentation />?

        <feature ... />*

        <property ... />*
      </input>*
...

If so, what do you think should be the value of the reference? 


Best Regards,
Kevin
 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org 
>[mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Asir Vedamuthu
>Sent: Thursday, Nov 18, 2004 07:29 AM
>To: 'Roberto Chinnici'; www-ws-desc@w3.org
>Subject: RE: Adding binding infault/outfault components (LC55)
>
>
>
>I read your proposal and have two questions,
>
>[1] it appears to me that binding fault reference and binding message
>reference look alike to some extent. However, their component 
>structures are
>very different. And, their mappings from xml infoset are 
>different too. Why
>are these different? BTW, I like your proposed component 
>structure. Would
>you recommend upgrading binding message reference component 
>structure to
>
>{message reference} REQUIRED - A Message Reference component
>{features} OPTIONAL - A set of Feature components
>{properties} OPTIONAL - A set of Property components
>
>[2] in light of your proposal, is it worth retaining Binding Fault
>component? "wsoap:code", "wsoap:subcodes" and "whttp:code" and their
>corresponding properties can be attached to the proposed Binding Fault
>Reference component.
>
>Regards,
>Asir S Vedamuthu
>asirv at webmethods dot com
>http://www.webmethods.com/
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On
>Behalf Of Roberto Chinnici
>Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 9:47 PM
>To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
>Subject: Adding binding infault/outfault components (LC55)
>
>
>
>I had an action item to to write up the addition of infault 
>and outfault
>at the binding level plus modifications of the component model. (LC55)
>
>Define a Binding Fault Reference component with the following 
>properties:
>
>  {fault reference} REQUIRED - A Fault Reference component.
>  {features} OPTIONAL - A set of Feature components.
>  {properties} OPTIONAL - A set of Property components.
>
>The pseudo-schema for a binding operation would be updated to look like
>this:
>
>    <operation ref="xs:QName" >
>      <documentation />?
>
>      <input messageLabel="xs:NCName"? >
>        <documentation />?
>
>        <feature ... />*
>
>        <property ... />*
>      </input>*
>
>      <output messageLabel="xs:NCName"? >
>        <documentation />?
>
>        <feature ... />*
>
>        <property ... />*
>      </output>*
>
>      <infault ref="xs:QName" messageLabel="xs:NCName"?>
>        <documentation />?
>
>        <feature ... />*
>
>        <property ... />*
>      </infault>*
>
>      <outfault ref="xs:QName" messageLabel="xs:NCName"?>
>        <documentation />?
>
>        <feature ... />*
>
>        <property ... />*
>      </outfault>*
>
>      <feature ... />*
>
>      <property ... />*
>    </operation>*
>
>The mapping of a binding infault
>
>      <infault ref="xs:QName" messageLabel="xs:NCName"?>
>        <documentation />?
>
>        <feature ... />*
>
>        <property ... />*
>      </infault>*
>
>to a Binding Fault Reference component BFR would be as follows:
>
>  (the notation C.{P} denotes property {P} of component C)
>
>  1. start with the Binding Operation BO;
>  2. BO.{operation reference} is an Interface Operation component I;
>  3. I.{fault references} is a set of Fault Reference components;
>  4. the value of BFR.{fault reference} is the unique element 
>FR of I.{fault
>references} such that
>       a. FR.{fault reference}.{name} == the value of the @ref 
>attribute of
>wsdl:infault
>       b. FR.{message label} == the value of the @message label of
>wsdl:infault (*)
>       c. FR.{direction} == 'in'
>
>(*) For consistency with the mapping rules for the Fault Reference
>component, the @message
>attribute is optional provided that there is only one message 
>in the MEP
>used by I whose
>corresponding fault has the 'in' direction (of course, taking 
>the fault rule
>used by the
>MEP into account).
>
>Similarly for a binding outfault, with 'out' in place of 'in'.
>
>In part 3, we'd extend the pseudo-schema so as to allow 
>wsoap:module inside
>the binding infault/outfault elements:
>
>    <operation ref="xs:QName" 
>               whttp:location="xs:anyURI"??
>               whttp:transferCodingDefault="xs:string"?? >
>               wsoap:mep="xs:anyURI"?
>               wsoap:action="xs:anyURI"? >
>      <documentation />?
>
>      <wsoap:module ... />*
>
>      <input messageLabel="xs:NCName"?
>             whttp:transferCoding="xs:string"?? >
>        <documentation />?
>        <wsoap:module ... />*
>        <feature ... />*
>        <property ... />*
>      </input>*
>
>      <output messageLabel="xs:NCName"?
>             whttp:transferCoding="xs:string"?? >
>        <documentation />?
>        <wsoap:module ... />*
>        <feature ... />*
>        <property ... />*
>      </output>*
>
>      <infault ref="xs:QName" messageLabel="xs:NCName"?
>             whttp:transferCoding="xs:string"?? >
>        <documentation />?
>        <wsoap:module ... />*
>        <feature ... />*
>        <property ... />*
>      </infault>*
>
>      <outfault ref="xs:QName" messageLabel="xs:NCName"?
>             whttp:transferCoding="xs:string"?? >
>        <documentation />?
>        <wsoap:module ... />*
>        <feature ... />*
>        <property ... />*
>      </outfault>*
>
>      <feature ... />*
>      <property ... />*
>    </operation>*
>
>Section 2.6.2 would be amended so that the {soap modules} 
>property becomes
>applicable to Binding Fault Reference components.
>
>Roberto
>
>-- 
>Roberto Chinnici
>Java Web Services
>Sun Microsystems, Inc.
>roberto.chinnici@sun.com
>
Received on Thursday, 18 November 2004 17:20:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:33 GMT