W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > February 2007

Re: Assertion on Bindings for Interface that only define faults

From: Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 14:35:58 -0500
To: Amelia A Lewis <alewis@tibco.com>
Cc: Ramkumar Menon <ramkumar.menon@gmail.com>, www-ws-desc@w3.org, www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF34867A33.69A64ECC-ON8525727B.0069E01E-8525727B.006B0CDB@ca.ibm.com>
Amy/Ram,

I agree that it does not make sense to bind an interface that has no 
operations.

Perhaps we could add a SHOULD assertion. This would map to a Warning in a 
validator.

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



Amelia A Lewis <alewis@tibco.com> 
Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
02/07/2007 11:17 AM

To
Ramkumar Menon <ramkumar.menon@gmail.com>, www-ws-desc@w3.org
cc

Subject
Re: Assertion on Bindings for Interface that only define faults







Heyo,

--On February 6, 2007 8:13:36 PM -0800 Ramkumar Menon 
<ramkumar.menon@gmail.com> wrote:
> I assume that it does not make sense, and is an error to define a 
Binding
> component for an Interface Component that defines only Faults. Does this
> call for a new assertion ?

I can see a use case, for a "mix-in" interface.  Perhaps that's stretching 

a point.  In any event, while it may seem pointless, I don't see that it 
is 
an error.

Amy!
-- 
Amelia A. Lewis
Senior Architect
TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc.
alewis@tibco.com
Received on Wednesday, 7 February 2007 19:36:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:46 GMT