RE: SOAP UML diagram

body cant_be_a header since since those extra properties MAY be present in a
header and MUST NOT in a body - that violates the inheritence/generalization
relationships that I know of! Is this a big deal for our purposes?

Martin.




> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of David Orchard
> Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 3:00 PM
> To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: SOAP UML diagram
>
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
> > Behalf Of Martin Chapman
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 12:24 PM
> > To: David Orchard; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: SOAP UML diagram
> >
> >
> > > Some comments:
> > > - I believe that a body is a header that is targetted at
> > the ultimate
> > > receiver
> >
> > The 1.2 doc doesn't really say that, and makes a point at
> > keeping the header
> > and body concepts quite separate.
> > Looking at the rules for the contents, both are identical except that
> > headers may have role, mustunderstand and relay attributes.
> > From a modelling perspective this actually makes a header a
> > subclass of
> > body!!!! Since thats not really how its presented in 1.2 I suggest we
> > avoid this trout!
> >
>
> The body effectively has role=ultimate receiver and mustUnderstand=true.
> How does "refining" something make it a parent in modelling?  Headers have
> these things being optional and a body effectively has them set.
> Therefore,
> body is-a header.
>
> Now MB makes the assertion that this was disproven on dist-app, but darned
> if I can find the discussion.
>
> Dave
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 4 June 2003 18:15:33 UTC