RE: Property Composition Edge Cases

Thank you for considering my comment.


-----Original Message-----
[] On Behalf Of Jonathan Marsh
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 3:58 PM
To: Asir Vedamuthu
Subject: RE: Property Composition Edge Cases

Thank you for the comment below, and for your patience with us in
resolving it.  We tracked the comment below as Issue LC27 [1].  The WG
agreed to change the property composition model so that required
properties trump non-required properties, instead of the previous
proximity rules.  The editors have addressed the issue in their latest
drafts [2].

If you agree with our disposition of your comment, we'd like you to
acknowledge it within two weeks; otherwise we will assume you are
satisfied.  The WG plans to enter a second (short) Last Call period in
the near future, and we invite you to review that publication as well.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: [mailto:public-ws-desc-
>] On Behalf Of Asir Vedamuthu
> Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 4:18 AM
> To: ''
> Subject: Property Composition Edge Cases
> ref:
> 20040803/#Property_composition_model
> Does our property composition model capture all possible cases? I am
> not
> sure. Here is a sample edge case,
> <interface name="Bank">
>     <!-- capable of accepting Kerberos v5 token -->
>     <property uri="">
>      <value>wsse:Kerberosv5TGT</value>
>     </property>
>     ..
> </interface>
> <interface name="OpenBank" extends="Bank">
>     <!-- capable of accepting x509 certificate -->
>     <property uri="">
>      <value>wsse:X509v3</value>
>     </property>
>     ..
> </interface>
> According to Interface Component,
> "The set of Property components corresponding to the property element
> information items in [children], if any, plus the set of Property
> components
> in the {properties} property of the Interface components in {extended
> interfaces}, if any."
> According to our equivalence rules, property declared in Bank
> interface is
> not equivalent to the property declared in Open Bank interface.
> Because, the
> value of {value} property is different. If these two property
> components are
> present in interface component.{properties}, what is the net effect?
> This
> will be further complicated if I use {value constraint}. Do we have a
> notion
> of type equivalence (for {value constraint})? Please revisit our
> property
> composition model and flush out all such edge cases.
> Also, shall we provide a special rule for computing the equivalence of
> property components?
> Regards,
> Asir S Vedamuthu
> asirv at webmethods dot com

Received on Friday, 6 May 2005 18:21:44 UTC