W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws@w3.org > July 2004

request for clarification on closing issue 211

From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 02:34:42 +0600
Message-ID: <1f1c01c47350$01250dc0$2e694109@LANKABOOK>
To: <www-ws@w3.org>

I'm incorporating the resolution for 211 which was to incorporate
the following text from Mark Nottingham to section 2.11.1 of part1:

      <p>For each Binding Message Reference in the {message
      references} property of a Binding Operation component, there
      MUST be an Interface Message Reference with the same {message
      label} and {direction} properties in the corresponding Interface
      Operation. Note that the converse is not required; i.e., there
      need not be a Binding Message Reference corresponding to each
      Interface Message Reference in the Interface Operation

I'm ok with the first part of this, but the note is a bit misleading-
it is indeed a requirement that every message defined in the
interface operation component MUST be bound! However, that may 
occur thru default rules .. which means it doesn't have to appear
explitly in the syntax, but it better appear in the component model
as a bound message!

It seems to me that the last sentence above is too strong and should
be dropped. I think I've already mentioned that to me even the first
sentence is of dubious value, but if people want that that's fine. 

Received on Monday, 26 July 2004 16:35:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:37:11 UTC