W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org > October 2006

RE: "interface" attribute info item on service component

From: Jonathan Marsh <jonathan@wso2.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 09:58:11 -0700
To: "'Ramkumar Menon'" <ramkumar.menon@gmail.com>
Cc: <public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <001301c6f144$447b01a0$3901a8c0@DELLICIOUS>

Thanks for your comments.  The WS Description Working Group tracked this as
three separate issues, and resolved them as noted below. 

Unless you let us know otherwise by the end of October, we will assume you
agree with the resolution of this issue.

Jonathan Marsh - http://www.wso2.com - http://auburnmarshes.spaces.live.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Ramkumar Menon
> Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 11:36 AM
> To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: "interface" attribute info item on service component
> Three fundamental questions.
> Would it be useful to add a clause for the <service> component stating
> The "interface" attribute information item should point to an
> interface that has non zero number of "operation" element information
> items within it.
> If not, we cd as well have service components that could possible be
> empty, and allow them to extend other service components, reflecting
> the same semantics we have defined for interface inheritance -
> considering that one service component is related to exactly one
> interface.

The WG tracked this issue as a CR047 [1].

There was no consensus to make any change to the document, as documented at
[2], and thus no change was made to the spec.
[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/cr-issues/issues.html#CR047
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2006Jul/0060.html

> Am I right if I state that if all "binding" attribute info items that
> had been defined on the endpoint node should have been associated with
> an  "interface" attribute information item? What does it mean to be
> otherwise ?

The WG tracked this issue as a CR048 [3].

To support interface-less bindings, it is possible to refer to a binding
that is generic to any number of interfaces, as explained at [4].  This
issue was closed with no action.

[3] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/cr-issues/issues.html#CR048
[4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2006May/0104.html

> Moreover, if the service component has an interface attribute info
> item that extends from two other interfaces, can the endpoint defined
> within it refer to bindings that were defined for the parent
> interfaces ? If yes/no, should this be reflected in the core language
> spec ?

The WG tracked this issue as a CR049 [5].

The spec requires that the binding of an endpoint must either be
interface-less, or refer to the same interface as the enclosing service. The
Working Group saw no compelling reason to change this [6], and closed the
issue with no action.

[5] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/cr-issues/issues.html#CR049 
[6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2006May/0131.html

> rgds,
> Ram
> --
> Shift to the left, shift to the right!
> Pop up, push down, byte, byte, byte!
> -Ramkumar Menon
>  A typical Macroprocessor
Received on Monday, 16 October 2006 16:58:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:31:05 UTC