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

RE: Assertion on Bindings for Interface that only define faults

From: Jonathan Marsh <jonathan@wso2.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 12:01:36 -0800
To: "'Arthur Ryman'" <ryman@ca.ibm.com>, "'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: <000001c74af2$c7f790e0$3501a8c0@DELLICIOUS>
Is it always straightforward to determine at WSDL parse time which interface
a binding applies to?  Esp. if the binding is generic?

 

Jonathan Marsh -  <http://www.wso2.com> http://www.wso2.com -
<http://auburnmarshes.spaces.live.com> http://auburnmarshes.spaces.live.com

 

  _____  

From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Arthur Ryman
Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 11:36 AM
To: Amelia A Lewis
Cc: Ramkumar Menon; www-ws-desc@w3.org; www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
Subject: 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
Received on Wednesday, 7 February 2007 20:01:20 GMT

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