RE: proposal for resolving service type issues

+1

-----Original Message-----
From: Jean-Jacques Moreau [mailto:moreau@crf.canon.fr] 
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2002 7:47 AM
To: sggraham@us.ibm.com
Cc: Sanjiva Weerawarana; WS-Desc WG (Public)
Subject: Re: proposal for resolving service type issues


Sounds good to me.

Jean-Jacques.

sggraham@us.ibm.com wrote:

> One way around this is to make the implements element a child
> of the service.
>
>   "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
> > 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.
>

Received on Tuesday, 18 June 2002 14:24:29 UTC