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

Re: SOAP Header Blocks in WSDL (was RE: First Class Headers - Pr oposed Resolution for LC76d

From: Asir Vedamuthu <asirv@webmethods.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2005 14:05:57 -0500
Message-ID: <5B10E50E14A4594EB1B5566B69AD9407068E69F9@maileast>
To: 'Amelia A Lewis' <alewis@tibco.com>
Cc: "'www-ws-desc@w3.org'" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

Amy,

> 1) it can't be validated

I didn't say that. It can be validated. But, the order is insignificant.
Similar (not the same) to http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2000/11/lc200 (member
only).

> 2) it's unduly burdensome
> That is, the author of a binding, not the author of an interface,

That is the tradeoff in this approach.

> 3) it's brittle
> A deployed service cannot reasonably and easily extend the types
> defined for headers in a way that describes new requirements,

I like to know how status quo supports this.

> 4) it's obscure
> Information about binding requirements are buried in the type system,
> requiring an author to find the required use (in the example) of

I like to know how status quo supports this. BTW, in Part 2, section 3.1.4,
http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-wsdl20-extensions-20040803/#adf-dp-desc,
required, optional, choice, maxOccurs, etc. are buried in the type system.

> /me has a heart attack and sprawls across the road

Oh, another one :-)

Regards,
Asir S Vedamuthu
asirv at webmethods dot com
http://www.webmethods.com/
Received on Wednesday, 2 February 2005 19:06:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:34 GMT