Re: Assertion on Bindings for Interface that only define faults

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