- From: Prasad Yendluri <pyendluri@webmethods.com>
- Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 13:54:01 -0700
- To: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
- CC: "WS-Desc WG (Public)" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
I think this is very desirable. You would want to identify the different abstractions as separate parts in the message and not bundle the entire message into say a single part captured by the XML schema. I think representing optionality at the abstract level (message level) is desirable. E.g. if I can see that this operation returns a PO plus one or more attachments at the abstract level it more valuable and we need not burden the PO schema to embed the optionality of arbitrary attachments that come from a totally unrelated namespace or content-type. Regards, Prasad Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote: > <issue id="issue-message-parts"> > <head>Should the message part mechanism be extended to support optional > parts etc.?</head> > In WSDL 1.1, a message can only be defined to be a sequence of parts. > It is not possible to indicate that certain parts may be optional, > may occur multiple times, etc.? Should we do that? Overlapping with > XML Schema's mechanisms is an obvious concern. > <source>Sanjiva Weerawarana</source> > </issue> > > Could we also start discussing this issue please? > > Sanjiva.
Received on Wednesday, 1 May 2002 16:51:27 UTC