- From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
- Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 20:01:31 +0600
- To: "Jim Webber" <jim.webber@arjuna.com>, "'Savas Parastatidis'" <Savas.Parastatidis@newcastle.ac.uk>, <public-ws-desc-state@w3.org>
I think I like this too! Basically it says an attribute is a different set of messages that are grouped together; one to <get> the attribute and one to (optionally) <set> the attribute. An <operation> OTOH is a set of messages that are sent and (optionally) received. Let's see what Steve thinks .. he's back from vacation but is prolly buried in email. Sanjiva. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Webber" <jim.webber@arjuna.com> To: "'Savas Parastatidis'" <Savas.Parastatidis@newcastle.ac.uk>; <public-ws-desc-state@w3.org> Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 3:13 PM Subject: 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 10:01:36 UTC