W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > June 2002

Overloading [was RE: Minutes, 27 June 2002 Web Service Description Telcon]

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 15:14:00 -0700
Message-ID: <330564469BFEC046B84E591EB3D4D59C06A08422@red-msg-08.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Marsh [mailto:jmarsh@microsoft.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 12:27 PM
> To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: Minutes, 27 June 2002 Web Service Description Telcon

> 11. Overloading operations:
> 	- JY: Disallow overloading but is possible through XML Schema.
> mentioned that it
> 	could be in the primer.
> 	- Some discussion on where it should go? Primer and mail
> 	Resolution: No resolution.
> 	Action: JM will think about what should be done with it and
> it.

I think there is still some confusion about this topic.  I apologize for
not reaching clarity during the call!

It was my understanding that we had resolved to remove overloaded
operations a number of weeks ago.  Last week Jochen questioned that
decision, and we gave the issue one more week to see if his new points
swayed anyone.  At the call today Jochen removed his objection.  At that
point I considered the issue to be closed, but I neglected to call
explicitly for any other objections, and moved on too quickly to
discussing where and how the resolution should be documented.

A more accurate way to state my understanding is that the
issue-operation-overloading is closed by removing the feature, and a new
issue has arisen:

issue-transition-documentation:  Do we need to provide user
documentation describing the transition between WSDL 1.1 and WSDL 1.2?
If so, what form should such documentation take?  The removal of
operation overloading and advice on how to restructure a WSDL 1.1 file
that relies on this feature are an example.

It would be nice if this were resolved prior to publication if this view
does represent the consensus of the WG, but is not a showstopper if
someone feels these issues cannot be cleanly separated.

Handling this issue has been a tricky balance between efficiently
closing an issue supported by a large majority, while making sure the
opposing viewpoints are examined completely.  Thanks for bearing with
Received on Thursday, 27 June 2002 18:14:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:06:24 UTC