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

Re: Duplicate @binding, @address on endpoint

From: Ramkumar Menon <ramkumar.menon@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 09:38:40 -0800
Message-ID: <22bb8a4e0702080938l3cfd89y254987d9d4e0ddde@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Amelia A Lewis" <alewis@tibco.com>
Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Hi Amelie,

I agree with you on both points - 100%. I think both seemed to be silly
questions to ask :-)
I guess I am misinterpreting the meaning and purpose of Assertions.


On 2/8/07, Amelia A Lewis <alewis@tibco.com> wrote:
> Dear Ram,
> The first of these strikes me as hand-holding.  Sure, one can do silly
> things with WSDL, and we don't prevent it.  I don't think that we need to
> issue even a warning about this, frankly.  (If we do, could we recommend
> that processors issue warnings in Python-speak or Seussian verse?)

As to the second, the assertions about best practices in another
specification developed by a different organization with no ties to W3C
seems to me entirely out of scope for WSDL 2.0.  WSI will be able to
profile WSDL 2.0 itself, when/if it wants to.  Definitely not our job.

(speaking for herself/her company, not the working group)
--On February 7, 2007 5:41:50 PM -0800 Ramkumar Menon
<ramkumar.menon@gmail.com> wrote:

> Gurus,
> Two questions.
> 1) Is it a valid use-case [even if its possible to model] to have a WSDL
> 2.0 document that has two endpoints that possess identical values for
> "binding" and "address" attributes [but with different names] ? If not,
> we could have an "SHOULD" assertion that covers this.
> 2) Is it possible for the User to model WSDL 2.0 documents that are not
> WS-I BP compliant ?
>    If so, does it make sense for the Validator to emit warnings on
> incompatibility ?
> I am interested in knowing your thoughts on these points.
> rgds,
> Ram

Amelia A. Lewis
Senior Architect
TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc.

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

-Ramkumar Menon
A typical Macroprocessor
Received on Thursday, 8 February 2007 17:38:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:55:03 UTC