- From: Savas Parastatidis <Savas.Parastatidis@newcastle.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 19:09:07 +0100
- To: <public-ws-desc-state@w3.org>
[snip] > > > > <definitions> > > <binding> > > <attribute> > > <soap:operation style="document|rpc"? > > soapAction="uri"? /> ? > > </attribute> > > </binding> > > </definitions> > > The above doens't work because WSDL doesn't allow one to > introduce new operations to the interface via soap:operation. > If we want to make this approach work then we'd have to > define something like soap:attribute to define how to bind > attributes. That is certainly viable, but suffers from > being binding specific. > You're right! My mistake. I don't see the problem with defining soap:attribute, though. Operations are binding specific already. Why not attributes? > > Now, if you mean that the WSDL specification should define that this > > > > <wsdl:interface name="myInterface"> > > <wsdl:attribute name="foo" type="xsd:string" readonly="true"/> > > </wsdl:interface> > > > > is translated to this > > > > <wsdl:message name="fooMessage" > > > <part name="value" type="xsd:string/> > > </wsdl:message> > > > > <wsdl:interface name="myInterface"> > > <wsdl:operation name="getFoo"> > > <wsdl:output message="fooMessage"/> > > </wsdl:operation> > > </wsdl:interface> > > That's precisely what I meant. > I see this as very restrictive. All you are doing is effectively defining in the WSDL specification a transformation from WSDL to WSDL. You are not making attributes a first-class WSDL element. > > then I would argue that these two are indeed very similar but such a > > transformation is more restrictive than it is necessary. I believe the > > previous binding approach is closer to what WSDL should define. > > I disagree. If we do it this way, someone can bind this to any > protocol/transport without any problem. It can be a regular SOAP > operation or an HTTP GET or whatever. Providing that flexibility > is precisely the role of wsdl:interface & wsdl:operation. > Then, if you are going to treat attributes as operations, perhaps you shouldn't define attributes in WSDL. You should have a separate document describing a convention on what it means for an interface to support attributes. What you are suggesting is similar to saying in IDL that the "attribute" IDL keyword suggests that every IDL-defined interface should have get/set methods. However, that is not the case. > > They're not at all; I think your mapping to WSDL shows that we > are basically in agreement except that you prefer something I > disagree with. > :-) > Nope, you have every right to have your views and defend it. As > long as you don't get to a certain Restafarian status you're in > good shape ;-). No no no. I am not going to convert this to a religious war. Life is too short :-) As long as you do it my way, we'll be fine :-) (Just joking of course). .savas.
Received on Wednesday, 2 July 2003 14:10:31 UTC