W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > May 2006

Re: "interface" attribute info item on service component

From: Ramkumar Menon <ramkumar.menon@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 20:41:08 -0700
Message-ID: <22bb8a4e0605292041r37b58317wcf8fee307eeeab20@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Arthur Ryman" <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org, www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
Hi Arthur,

Thanks for the detailed explanation.
Maybe I was not clear in my question (1) .
I was explicitly referring to the "interface" attribute on the <service>
nodes. Woudnt the interfaces that are referred to as attributes on the
<service> nodes need to have atleast one operation within them, either
declared / inherited ? Would it make sense to explicitly state this in the
spec ?
Similarly, for the second question, I was referring to those bindings that
are referred to from within the <endpoint> node as an attribute - wdnt these
referred bindings need to be referring to an interface mandatorily ? Again,
if it makes sense, would it better if we explicitly state ithis in the spec
?

I would also appreciate your thoughts on point (3).

Thanks again!

rgds,
Ram


On 5/29/06, Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>
> Ram,
>
> It might be useful to have an interface that just defined faults, so -1 to
> requiring one or more operations.
>
> An endpoint refers to a single binding. If the binding refers to an
> interface, it must be the same as the service's interface. Note that generic
> "interfaceless" bindings are possible.
>
> Arthur Ryman,
> IBM Software Group, Rational Division
>
> blog: http://ryman.eclipsedevelopersjournal.com/
> phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
> assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411
> fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
> mobile: +1-416-939-5063, text: 4169395063@fido.ca
>
>
>   *"Ramkumar Menon" <ramkumar.menon@gmail.com>*
> Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
>
> 05/23/2006 02:36 PM
>    To
> www-ws-desc@w3.org  cc
>   Subject
> "interface" attribute info item on service component
>
>
>
>
>
> Three fundamental questions.
>
> Would it be useful to add a clause for the <service> component stating
> The "interface" attribute information item should point to an
> interface that has non zero number of "operation" element information
> items within it.
> If not, we cd as well have service components that could possible be
> empty, and allow them to extend other service components, reflecting
> the same semantics we have defined for interface inheritance -
> considering that one service component is related to exactly one
> interface.
>
> Am I right if I state that if all "binding" attribute info items that
> had been defined on the endpoint node should have been associated with
> an  "interface" attribute information item? What does it mean to be
> otherwise ?
>
> Moreover, if the service component has an interface attribute info
> item that extends from two other interfaces, can the endpoint defined
> within it refer to bindings that were defined for the parent
> interfaces ? If yes/no, should this be reflected in the core language
> spec ?
>
> rgds,
> Ram
> --
> Shift to the left, shift to the right!
> Pop up, push down, byte, byte, byte!
>
> -Ramkumar Menon
> A typical Macroprocessor
>
>
>


-- 
Shift to the left, shift to the right!
Pop up, push down, byte, byte, byte!

-Ramkumar Menon
A typical Macroprocessor
Received on Tuesday, 30 May 2006 03:41:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:40 GMT