- From: <sggraham@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 05:05:02 -0400
- To: "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
- Cc: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, "WS-Desc WG (Public)" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>, www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
- Message-ID: <OF9405A639.1515790C-ON85256BD5.0031DAF0@us.ibm.com>
One way around this is to make the implements element a child of the
service.
++++++++
Steve Graham
sggraham@us.ibm.com
(919)254-0615 (T/L 444)
Emerging Technologies
++++++++
"Jean-Jacques
Moreau" To: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
<moreau@crf. cc: "WS-Desc WG (Public)" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
canon.fr> Subject: Re: proposal for resolving service type issues
Sent by: www-ws-
desc-request@w3.
org
06/10/2002 01:30
PM
Sanjiva, I like your proposal. In particular, I think there is a
lot of merit in bringing the notion of an abstract service into
the foreground. Please find my comments below.
Jean-Jacques.
> We require that all services defined in a single document be of
a single
> service type.
This is fine...
> 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.
> two portTypes are said to be equivalent iff they have the same
qualified
> name.
Hmmm... somebody could get it wrong and you could end up with two
portType with the same qname but different children EIIs. It's
probably not our business, though, and more like a programmer's
bug.
Attachments
- image/gif attachment: graycol.gif
- image/gif attachment: ecblank.gif
Received on Tuesday, 11 June 2002 12:18:53 UTC