RE: Something else to consider

Savas:

This seems a nice solution. But what about headers? In our (offline) talk we
covered some of these issues, but could you follow through in this group
too?

Jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-desc-state-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-ws-desc-state-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of 
> Savas Parastatidis
> Sent: 13 July 2003 23:36
> To: public-ws-desc-state@w3.org
> Subject: Something else to consider
> 
> 
> 
> All,
> 
> Drawing from Sanjiva's very good suggestion in the WSDL 
> mailing list for the removal of <message>, please allow me to 
> suggest another syntax for attributes for all of us to consider:
> 
> <attribute name="ncname">
>     <get [(body="qname") | (element="qname")]>
>         [<xsd:complexType> ... </xsd:complexType>]
>     </get>
>     <set [(body="qname") | (element="qname")] 
>         [<xsd:complexType> ... </xsd:complexType>]
>     </set>
> </attribute >
> 
> It's very similar to Sanjiva's syntax for the operation. 
> Absence of a get or a set will make the attribute write-only 
> or read-only respectively.
> 
> It is still the case that binding will be required.
> 
> 
> Going back to David's comments on the requirement for having 
> "static" attributes in a WSDL document... I would argue that 
> the only reason one would want to put a static value in an 
> interface document is because they want to make available 
> metadata information. I believe that the current draft of 
> WSDL already supports this through the <feature> and 
> <property> elements, if I haven't misunderstood the intention 
> for their introduction.
> 
> Regards,
> .savas.
> 
> 
>

Received on Monday, 14 July 2003 08:07:59 UTC