- From: Jeffrey Schlimmer <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 15:08:03 -0800
- To: "David Booth" <dbooth@w3.org>
- Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Regarding DR042, yes. I meant be able to create a new port type from another by adding more operations. That is, an extended port type supports a superset of the operations of a base port type. This is right at the edge of the hairy substitutability issues (where parts of a request message may vary in generality differently than parts of a response message), but I've seen some compelling cases for this behavior, and I'm cautiously optimistic that it could actually be made to interop reasonably well. --Jeff -----Original Message----- From: David Booth [mailto:dbooth@w3.org] Sent: Monday, February 11, 2002 1:01 PM To: Jeffrey Schlimmer Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org Subject: Re: Web Services Description: Requirements At 06:11 PM 2/8/2002 -0800, you wrote: ... >Must be able to describe sets of messages that form a logical group >(i.e., a port type). > >Must be able to derive a port type from another by extension of the >logical group of messages. Do you mean creating a new port type from another by adding more message types? ... David Booth
Received on Wednesday, 13 February 2002 18:11:10 UTC