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

Re: Synchronous v/s Asynchronous, a WSA question, and few suggestions

From: Ramkumar Menon <ramkumar.menon@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 11:00:46 -0700
Message-ID: <22bb8a4e0610051100n71018f7x736b2075876d7bb0@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek.kopecky@deri.org>
Cc: "Arthur Ryman" <ryman@ca.ibm.com>, www-ws-desc@w3.org, www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
Jacek,

I agree with your suggested change to the assertion .

rgds,
Ram


On 10/5/06, Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@deri.org> wrote:
>
> Hi all, see below,
>
> On Thu, 2006-10-05 at 10:45 -0400, Arthur Ryman wrote:
> > b) Section 2.9.1 in the Core Language Spec states that "A Binding
> > component that defines bindings for an Interface component MUST define
> > bindings for all the operations of that Interface component".
> >  Shouldnt a similar assertion be made regarding the Faults declared in
> > the interface as well? i.e.  "A Binding component that defines
> > bindings for an Interface component MUST define bindings for all the
> > faults of that Interface component"
> >
> > Concerning global faults, simply define an interface that contains the
> > faults and include that interface in the extends attribute of any
> > other interface that uses them:
>
> I don't think we need to provide bindings for faults that are not
> referenced by any operation. So maybe we can say
>
> "A Binding component that defines bindings for an Interface component
> MUST define binding for all the faults of that Interface component that
> are referenced from any of the operations in that Interface component."
>
> Hope it helps,
> Jacek
>
>


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

-Ramkumar Menon
A typical Macroprocessor
Received on Thursday, 5 October 2006 18:00:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:42 GMT