RE: Requiredness (two issues)


I've recorded the first issue below in our last call issues list (under
construction as I write) as our first last call issue.  The resolution
decided at our meeting August 4th [1] was as you recall "to remove the
required flag on property element and make appropriate changes to the
component model."

This mail serves as an announcement of this resolution.  If you could
reply acknowledging that this resolves your comment I will have a URI to
put in the last call issues list.

(This can all be inferred from the minutes but this separate mail will
be cleaner for non-WG members to follow.)



> -----Original Message-----
> From: []
> Behalf Of Glen Daniels
> Sent: Monday, July 26, 2004 9:09 AM
> To:
> Subject: Requiredness (two issues)
> Hi WSDL'ers:
> Two related things:
> -1-
> First off, I continue to believe that the "required" flag on
> is NOT necessary.  Property values/constraints simply make the
> values available to the runtime.  If you think about why you would
> want to require setting a particular property, you can achieve the
> result by simply requiring a component (feature/module/binding) which
> uses that property.
> Any binding or SOAP module which utilizes particular properties will
> able to pull the values/constraints for those properties out of the
> component model.  Certain specs may have defined default values for
> properties, so if values for those properties are not expressed in the
> WSDL, they would take on the defaults.  If a property is needed by a
> given feature/binding/module and NOT specified in the WSDL, then this
> would be an error, but I don't think that a "required" flag on the
> property value/constraint helps this situation at all.  Understanding
> particular feature/binding/module implies understanding the property
> which is required.
> I propose we pull this out of the spec, which would simplify both the
> prose and the model.
> -2-
> Second, reading through the way we specify the co-occurrence
> between property/constraint and property/value, I found it a little
> confusing.  I think it would be nice to explicitly say something up
> front along the lines of:
> "{value} OPTIONAL.  The value of the property.  If {value} is
> the effect is to force a particular value for the {constraint}
> (see below)."
> Thoughts?
> --Glen

Received on Wednesday, 1 September 2004 17:27:29 UTC