- From: Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 17:44:16 -0500
- To: public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org
- Message-ID: <OFB30C6A00.60122C84-ON85256F49.007BC799-85256F49.007CE083@ca.ibm.com>
The Component Model does not enforce nesting. For example, consider two interfaces, that each have a single operation, e.g. interface TV { operation PowerOn; } interface Radio { operation PowerOn; } The TV and Radio interfaces each contain a PowerOn operation. Suppose that the properties of the PowerOn operations are identical in both cases. The Component Model allows there to be a single Operation component that appears in the {operations} property of each Interface component. This violates our intuition that operations are local to interfaces, and which is apparent in the XML syntax for WSDL 2.0. More seriously, this situation breaks the URI Reference specification since that assumes we can identify any component by build up a path of names of its ancestors. In this example, there is not unique path to the Operation component. I recommend that the Component Model should faithfully reflect the nesting structure of components that is apparent from the XML syntax of WSDL 2.0 documents. This translates to the constraint that every component, except the root Description component, have a unique parent. The parent of the component is the component that contains the definition of the component as in the XML syntax. 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: 4169395063@fido.ca intranet: http://labweb.torolab.ibm.com/DRY6/
Received on Thursday, 11 November 2004 22:44:39 UTC