RE: issue-intra-port-relationship (was ..Freshly updated draft of part1 (was: Re: Overloading [was RE: Minutes, 27 June 2002 Web Servi ce Description Telcon]))

Well, I thought it was a good idea too (simplify, simplify, simplify) but as Sanjiva said, there wasn't much support in the room for it.

--
Tom Jordahl
Macromedia


-----Original Message-----
From: Sanjiva Weerawarana [mailto:sanjiva@watson.ibm.com]
Sent: Friday, June 28, 2002 10:11 PM
To: Prasad Yendluri; Jonathan Marsh; www-ws-desc@w3.org
Subject: Re: issue-intra-port-relationship (was ..Freshly updated draft
of part1 (was: Re: Overloading [was RE: Minutes, 27 June 2002 Web
Service Description Telcon]))



"Prasad Yendluri" <pyendluri@webmethods.com> writes:
> I have also seen proposals limiting one service per WSDL. If that makes
> through this restriction would not only restrict one from putting such
> related ports not only in the same service but also in the same WSDL as
> they need to be in separate services. Given the other restriction that
> was proposed in the conference call that every WSDL MUST have a unique
> targetNamespace, it will result in these not being in the same
> targetNamespace as well..

We resolved the multiple services issue too at the F2F saying you
can have >= 1 service(s) in a single WSDL document. I was pushing to
have a single (complete) doc restricted to exactly one serviceType
but >=1 service(s), all of that single serviceType, but didn't get
much (any?) support for it.

Bye,

Sanjiva.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Prasad Yendluri" <pyendluri@webmethods.com>
To: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>; "Jonathan Marsh"
<jmarsh@microsoft.com>; <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Sent: Saturday, June 29, 2002 1:06 AM
Subject: Re: issue-intra-port-relationship (was ..Freshly updated draft of
part1 (was: Re: Overloading [was RE: Minutes, 27 June 2002 Web Service
Description Telcon]))

Received on Tuesday, 2 July 2002 10:19:18 UTC