- From: John Kaputin <KAPUTIN@uk.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 14:00:38 +0100
- To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
I am trying to implement the WSDL 2.0 spec with an API that matches the
WSDL 2.0 component model, but I see that the property name inconsistencies
reported previously still exist in the spec. I couldn't see any entries in
the Issues Lists about this. Can anyone on the WG indicate if/when these
will be corrected?
There were two issues:
1. the word 'reference' was incorrectly used in some property names to
refer to components that were not XXXReference components
2. whether to use short-hand names like {fault} and {faults} or full
descriptive names like {interface fault} and {binding faults}
I am most concerned with issue 1. Three property name changes are required:
FaultReference {fault reference} becomes {fault} or {interface fault}
(because the property refers to an InterfaceFault component)
BindingFault {fault reference} becomes {fault} or {interface fault}
(because the property refers to an InterfaceFault component)
BindingOperation {operation reference} becomes {operation} or {interface
operation}
(because the property refers to an InterfaceOperation component)
Note, the following uses of 'reference' are correct:
InterfaceOperation {fault references} .... a set of FaultReference
InterfaceOperation {message references} .... a set of MessageReference
BindingMessageReference {message reference} .... a MessageReference
BindingOperation {message references} .... a set of Binding Message
Reference (1)
BindingOperation {fault references} .... a set of BindingFaultReference (2)
BindingFaultReference {fault reference} .... a FaultReference
(1) so maybe {binding message references} could be used?
(2) so maybe {binding fault references}?
John Kaputin
Hursley Laboratory
IBM UK
----- Forwarded by John Kaputin/UK/IBM on 31/03/2005 12:02 -----
Asir Vedamuthu
<asirv@webmetho
ds.com> To
John Kaputin/UK/IBM@IBMGB,
11/02/2005 www-ws-desc@w3.org
22:22 cc
Subject
RE: Consistency of WSDL Component
property names
+1, continuing along these lines, I request the following changes ...
Binding Operation.{operation reference} =>
Binding Operation.{interface operation}
Binding Operation.{message references} =>
Binding Operation.{binding message references}
Taking LC55 [1] into account ...
Binding Fault Reference.{fault reference} =>
Binding Fault Reference.{interface fault reference}
Binding Message Reference.{message reference} =>
Binding Message Reference.{interface message reference}
I request the WG to consider the following ...
Similar to (Interface Operation, Binding Operation), (Interface Fault,
Binding Fault), ...
Fault Reference => Interface Fault Reference
Message Reference => Interface Message Reference
That leads to ...
Interface Operation.{fault references} =>
Interface Operation.{interface fault references}
Interface Operation.{message references} =>
Interface Operation.{interface message references}
[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC55
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 John Kaputin
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2005 8:04 AM
To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Subject: Consistency of WSDL Component property names
I'd like to suggest some improvements in the consistency of property names
in the Component Model (WSDL 2.0 Part 1 spec, Section 2 Component Model)
ElementDeclaration is referred to by properties in various components:
Description has property {element declarations} - a set of
ElementDeclaration
InterfaceFault has property {element} - an
ElementDeclaration
MessageReference has property {element} - an ElementDeclaration
For clarity, could same name be used for properties that refer to the same
type of component (with adjustments for plural or singular):
Description {elements}
InterfaceFault {element}
MessageReference {element}
==================
There is a similar inconsistency with the names of fault properties:
Interface {faults} - a set of InterfaceFault
InterfaceOperation {fault references} - a set of FaultReference
FaultReference {fault reference} - an InterfaceFault
BindingFault {fault reference} - an InterfaceFault
The use of {fault references} for InterfaceOperation makes sense, but its
use in FaultReference and BindingFault is confusing. For example, a
FaultReference {fault reference} refers to an InterfaceFault that must be a
member of the parent Interface {faults} so why not use the same property
name for both?
In this example, the {fault reference} property in FaultReference and
BindingFault could be simply {fault}, thus:
FaultReference {fault} - an InterfaceFault
BindingFault {fault} - an InterfaceFault
==========================
Perhaps property names could be made not only consistent but more
descriptive by basing them on the name of the Component they refer to. This
would facilitate the creation of APIs based closely on the WSDL Component
Model that are more descriptive (eg: the getter/setter methods for
properties).
Thus...
Description {element declarations} - a set of ElementDeclaration
InterfaceFault {element declaration} - an ElementDeclaration
MessageReference {element declaration} - an ElementDeclaration
and...
Interface {interface faults} - a set of InterfaceFault
InterfaceOperation {fault references} - a set of FaultReference
FaultReference {interface fault} - an InterfaceFault
BindingFault {interface fault} - an InterfaceFault
This would also clarify the use of operations and faults across Interfaces
and Bindings:
Interface {fault} - an InterfaceFault
Binding {fault} - a BindingFault
could become...
Interface {interface fault} - an InterfaceFault
Binding {binding fault} - a BindingFault
And....
Interface {operations} - a set of InterfaceOperation
Binding {operations} - a set of BindingOperation
could become...
Interface {interface operations} - a set of InterfaceOperation
Binding {binding operations} - a set of BindingOperation
regards,
John Kaputin
Hursley Laboratory
IBM UK Ltd
Received on Thursday, 31 March 2005 13:06:40 UTC