- From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
- Date: Tue, 7 May 2002 22:35:01 +0600
- To: "Mike Deem" <mikedeem@microsoft.com>, "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
- Cc: "WS-Desc WG \(Public\)" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Hi Mike, > In any case, I do agree that removing message/part is almost certainly > not in scope for WSDL 1.2. Great! > However, I would like to propose that message descriptions be *expanded* > to include constructs other then the wsdl:message element. Specifically, > the message attribute on an input and output element would be able to > reference a schema complex type directly. For example, this: > > <type> > <schema ...> > <complexType name="MyMessageType"> > ... > </complexType> > </schema> > </type> > > <portType ...> > <operation ...> > <input ... message="sns:MyMessageType"/> > </operation> > </portType> > > Would be an optional alternative to this: > > <type> > <schema ...> > <complexType name="MyMessageType"> > ... > </complexType> > </schema> > </type> > > <message name="MyMessage"> > <part name="(any name)" type="sns:MyMessageType"/> > </message> > > <portType ...> > <operation ...> > <input ... message="wns:MyMessage"/> > </operation> > </portType> > > Such a mechanism would not be limited to just schema. Any type system > understood by an implementation could be used to describe messages. I thought about this too, but we also have to figure out the impact on bindings. Right now we have stuff like message= and parts= in bindings. Those have to change too of course. If you can work that out and make a concrete proposal that would be great. Sanjiva.
Received on Tuesday, 7 May 2002 12:38:19 UTC