- From: Steve Graham <sggraham@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 12:43:51 -0400
- To: "Savas Parastatidis" <Savas.Parastatidis@newcastle.ac.uk>
- Cc: public-ws-desc-state@w3.org, public-ws-desc-state-request@w3.org
I have a strong concern with modelling static values as
properties/features. I am quite uncomfortable with this notion as it seems
to lose the affinity between the attribute declaration and the set of
"static" values that may be associated with the attribute. It seems too
awkward to use properties and features for this.
sgg
++++++++
Steve Graham
sggraham@us.ibm.com
(919)254-0615 (T/L 444)
STSM, On Demand Architecture
++++++++
"Savas Parastatidis"
<Savas.Parastatidis@newca To: <public-ws-desc-state@w3.org>
stle.ac.uk> cc:
Sent by: Subject: Something else to consider
public-ws-desc-state-requ
est@w3.org
07/13/2003 06:36 PM
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 Wednesday, 16 July 2003 13:52:58 UTC