W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-desc-state@w3.org > June 2003

RE: Some requirements

From: Savas Parastatidis <Savas.Parastatidis@newcastle.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 00:03:41 +0100
Message-ID: <BC28A9E979C56C44BCBC2DED313A447001D75542@bond.ncl.ac.uk>
To: "VAMBENEPE,WILLIAM (HP-Cupertino,ex1)" <vbp@hp.com>, "Steve Graham" <sggraham@us.ibm.com>
Cc: "David Snelling" <d.snelling@fle.fujitsu.com>, "Jim Webber" <jim.webber@arjuna.com>, <ksankar@cisco.com>, "Paul Watson" <Paul.Watson@newcastle.ac.uk>, <public-ws-desc-state@w3c.org>, "Steve Tuecke" <tuecke@mcs.anl.gov>, "Umit Yalcinalp" <umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com>

> What I hear Savas say is "the interface should only contain the list
> attributes, not how to get them". This is different from "the
> on
> how to get an attribute is not available in the WSDL document".
> and
> ports are part of the WSDL doc. I don't have a problem with this
> information
> being entirely in the binding.



> Savas, do you agree that bindings should provide this information and
> that,
> in the case of the SOAP over HTTP binding it means that the WSDL
> group would have to enrich the binding to tell people how to access
> attributes defined in the interface? Or are you saying that this does
> belong in the "generic" bindings even but somewhere else altogether
> then I ask why would binding be specific to operations and not
> attributes?).

The binding solution is not the panacea. It will allow us to do simple
things, like get/set (even for multiple attributes at a time) but not
find or partial lists. Hence, not all the requirements can be met, which
is fine by me. I like the idea of treating attributes and operations in
a similar way.

Received on Tuesday, 17 June 2003 19:04:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:32:54 UTC