W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > April 2005

RE: Contradictions regarding transitivity of wsdl:import

From: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 17:31:17 -0700
Message-ID: <DD35CC66F54D8248B6E04232892B6338056FF824@RED-MSG-43.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "David Booth" <dbooth@w3.org>, "Arthur Ryman" <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

 

> -----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
Received on Saturday, 16 April 2005 00:31:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:35 GMT