RE: Something else to consider

OK,

As promised, here's my response to Jim's message on headers and
attributes.

> 
> I see no difference between operations and attributes. As someone who
> works
> in transactions I definitely think I need to be able to update an
> attribute
> within the scope of a transaction, just like I can invoke an operation
in
> the scope of a transaction.
> 

I totally agree with this. However, I don't see why you can't do that
without headers. Headers are used when you define protocols and not when
you are using those protocols.

Let's assume you have the following interface...

<interface name="foo">
   <operation name="oper" body="myNS:operBody"/>
   <attribute name="attr" body="myNS:attrBody"/>
</interface>

If you want to call myNS:oper or you want to update myNS:attr within the
context of a TX, then you would change the interface to the following:

<interface name="foo">
   <operation name="oper" body="myNS:operBody">
      <wsdl:feature
 
uri="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2002/08/wstx/requires-new"
            required="false"/>
   </operation>
   <attribute name="attr" body="myNS:attrBody">
      <wsdl:feature
 
uri="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2002/08/wstx/requires-new"
            required="true"/>
   </attribute>
</interface>

So, no need for headers here.


> So you could have attribute declarations like:
> 
> <attribute name="foo" access="both">
>     <body element="x:SomeElement"/>
>     <header element="tx:TxContext" use="set"/>
> </attribute>
> 

Now, in a protocol like WS-Transactions, if you wanted to use attributes
as part of the protocol message exchange, then, yes, you would need to
have headers. But I believe that in most cases attributes will not be
used in protocols.

Then again, I may be wrong, in which case I have no problem with
including @headers as part of the syntax.

Regards,
.savas.

Received on Thursday, 17 July 2003 05:58:24 UTC