The Component Model is Underconstrained wrt the WSDL 2.0 Schema

As written, the Component Model is missing constraints that enable typical 
instances of the Component Model to be represented as WSDL 2.0 documents. 
This problem is over and above the differences in the character sets and 
name values allowed by the Component Model versus XML.

For example, consider and Interface that extends no other Interfaces and 
that contains a single Operation. Both the Interface and the Operation 
have a QName. However, the Component Model does not constrain their 
namespace names to be equal, as would be the case if the Component Model 
instance came from a WSDL 2.0 document.

I think there is no value in making the Component Model much more general 
than what can be expressed in WSDL 2.0 documents (except for the character 

I recommend that the Component Model be tightened up to allow its 
instances to be represented by WSDL 2.0 documents, except when prevented 
by differences in character sets and name value spaces. (BTW, I am 
unconvinced that allowing any exceptions is very valuable.)

Arthur Ryman,
Rational Desktop Tools Development

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:

Received on Thursday, 11 November 2004 22:44:22 UTC