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

RE: attributes in CORBA IDL

From: Savas Parastatidis <Savas.Parastatidis@newcastle.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 18:47:05 +0100
Message-ID: <BC28A9E979C56C44BCBC2DED313A447001D75AE0@bond.ncl.ac.uk>
To: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, <public-ws-desc-state@w3.org>, "Jeff Mischkinsky" <jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com>
Cc: "Steve Graham" <sggraham@us.ibm.com>

> In IDL, if you say "attribute string foo" its simply another way
> of saying "string getFoo ()" and "void setFoo (string)".

I think there is a misunderstanding here. In IDL, saying "attribute
string foo" DOES NOT mean "string getFoo()". The CORBA IDL binding to
JAVA says that.

In IDL, when you say "attribute string foo" all you have suggested is
that there is an attribute called foo as part of the interface. The IDL
specification gives you the means to write interfaces that contain
attributes. That is exactly what WSDL should do as well.

In WSDL, saying

<interface ...>
   <attribute ...>

should only mean that there is an attribute as part of the interface.

> Without such an approach, there's no way to implement a stub
> so that it knows what to do when someone wants to read the attribute.

How an implementation creates stubs from a WSDL interface should be
irrelevant to the WSDL specification.

> WSDL as the IDL for Web services should presumably support the same
> model for attributes: an attribute x in WSDL means that the service
> offers getx() and maybe setx() (if the attr is readonly).

Do you mean getx() and setx() WSDL operations? If that is the case, then
you don't need attributes. If you mean that there should be a way to
get/set the values of attributes, then yes... that's the responsibility
of the binding specification. In one of my previous messages I suggested
just that.

> Are you now agreeing this is the right way to go? IIRC you disagreed
> earlier; my apologies if I misunderstood you.

No, I have not changed my position. It's the same. I thought you agreed
with what I was saying. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Received on Monday, 30 June 2003 13:47:21 UTC

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