RE: The Component Model Does Not Enforce Component Nesting

Thank you for your comment - we tracked this as a Last Call comment LC
83 [1].  The Working Group agreed to add parent properties to components
to fix this problem.  See also LC105.  If we don't hear otherwise within
two weeks, we will assume this satisfies your concern.







[] On Behalf Of Arthur
Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 2:44 PM
Subject: The Component Model Does Not Enforce Component Nesting


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:

Received on Saturday, 21 May 2005 03:43:20 UTC