Re: proposal for resolving service type issues

At 01:48 PM 6/10/2002, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
> > > That type is indicated by inserting the following required
> > declaration:
> > >
> > >      <implements serviceType="qname"/>
> >
> > ... however I don't think we can require the wsdl:implement
> > element to be always present. For example, the WSDL file may only
> > contain an abstract service declaration, which is refined and
> > implemented in a second WSDL file. I think wsld:implement should
> > be optional unless there is a concrete service definition (i.e.
> > binding), in which case it should be mandatory.
>
>Oh yes, good point!

Might this be resolved by moving the wsdl:implements element to live within 
the wsdl:service element, instead of within the wsdl:description element, 
and make wsdl:implements required for all wsdl:service elements?

-Steve

Received on Tuesday, 11 June 2002 04:16:12 UTC