RE: Contradictions regarding transitivity of wsdl:import

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Booth [mailto:dbooth@w3.org] 
> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 5:22 PM
> To: Arthur Ryman; Martin Gudgin
> Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Contradictions regarding transitivity of wsdl:import
> 
> Arthur & Gudge,
<SNIP/
> 
> I think it would be considerably clearer if the component model for a
> "WSDL 2.0 document"*** (see below) would consist of all and 
> *only* those
> components that are supposed to be visible to that WSDL 2.0 document
> (which in the A-imports-B-imports-C example would include components
> that originated from B but NOT those that originated from C). 
>  Is there
> some reason why you think this approach would be inadequate?

Well, it would mean that some of the components of B would be
'incomplete' because the components from C that they refer to would be
missing.

I wonder if what we actually have is a component model for the root
which includes imported components and a separate component model for
each imported namespace (recurse as necessary).

Gudge