W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org > November 2005

RE: Interface definition

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2005 12:40:56 -0800
Message-ID: <37D0366A39A9044286B2783EB4C3C4E89EC1ED@RED-MSG-10.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "rama krishna" <crkrishna29@yahoo.com>
Cc: <public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org>

Thanks for your comment.  The WS Description Working Group tracked this
as a Last Call comment LC347 [1].  During the development of the
specification we discussed nearly identical proposals at some length.
The Working Group reached a difficult compromise on this topic, as
reflected in the current drafts, and was unwilling to reconsider the
design at this point in our cycle.

If we don't hear otherwise within two weeks, we will assume this
satisfies your concern.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/lc-issues/issues.html#LC347

-----Original Message-----
From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of rama krishna
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 3:35 AM
To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Subject: Interface definition

I was reading through the WSDL 2.0 primer. I see a new
addition where the fault is defined outside the
operation but inside the interface for reusability.
This logic can be extended for other messages as well
( input and output). Quite frankly it seems redundant
to declare the fault again inside the
interface. Fundamentally faults are no different than
output messages. Only thing the service provider
with it when the normal processing doesnt happen. They
should be treated like output messages. Declaring the
message type ( in schemas/types) and using it in the
Operation should be good enough similar to the other messages.

Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.
Received on Thursday, 3 November 2005 20:41:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:31:03 UTC