Freshly updated draft of part1 (was: Re: Overloading [was RE: Minutes, 27 June 2002 Web Service Description Telcon])

I have updated the document to remove the ability to have overloaded
operations. This also meant that the "name" attributes on <input>
and <output> within <operation> was redundant; so I have removed them.

JJM: Please remember to put an ed-note on the part2 doc saying
it needs to be updated for this case too. (If you have one overall
one saying the part2 doc may not be fully up-to-date yet that's fine.)
In some sense the getting overall feedback on part1 is most critical
at this stage as we can adapt part2 to fit accordingly later ..

I have also closed the following issue:

    <issue id="issue-intra-port-relationship" status="closed">
      <head>Should intra-port relationships be allowed?</head>
      <source>Prasad Yendluri</source>
      <p>The above restrictions seems to be unnecessary. What is the
      justification?</p>
      <resolution><p>Decided to retain this restriction as no one could
      figure out what one would want with having this feature. See
      Wed PM minutes for June '02 F2F.</p></resolution>
    </issue>

and introduced the issue for transition docs:

<issue id="issue-transition-documentation">
  <head>Do we need to provide user documentation describing the
  transition between WSDL 1.1 and WSDL 1.2?</head>
  <source>Jonathan Marsh</source>
  <p> If we decide to do 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.</p>
</issue>

The updated doc is at the usual place:
    http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/part1/part1.html

Bye,

Sanjiva.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
To: "Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>; <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Sent: Friday, June 28, 2002 8:46 AM
Subject: Re: Overloading [was RE: Minutes, 27 June 2002 Web Service
Description Telcon]


>
> "Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com> writes:
> >
> > 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.
>
> Thanks for clarifying this Jonathan- I agree 100% this is the
> consensus we reached on the call.
>
> > 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.
>
> I will update the part1 doc accordingly, if someone has a major
> issue with it speak up now or hold your peace!
>
> Sanjiva.

Received on Thursday, 27 June 2002 23:17:49 UTC