RE: Something else to consider

I find this elegant, but my main question is how this meets the requirements
we have listed. I can see many requirements that don't appear to be met by
this, such as ability to query over multiple attributes and ability to
attach metadata to attributes. Or am I missing something in this proposal?
Do the get and set operations allow more advanced syntax to meet these
requirements?

Regards,

William

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sanjiva Weerawarana [mailto:sanjiva@watson.ibm.com] 
> Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 7:02 AM
> To: Jim Webber; 'Savas Parastatidis'; public-ws-desc-state@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Something else to consider
> 
> 
> 
> 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 16:15:54 UTC