RE: Proposal for the removal of the message construct from WSDL 1.2 from Martin Gudgin on 2002-11-19 (www-ws-desc@w3.org from November 2002)

From: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 11:11:19 -0800
To: "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Cc: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, "WS-Desc WG (Public)" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Message-ID: <92456F6B84D1324C943905BEEAE0278E02F44388@RED-MSG-10.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>

That makes sense, I wonder if one could go even further and access
attachments via standard Infoset properties.

Gudge

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jean-Jacques Moreau [mailto:moreau@crf.canon.fr] 
> Sent: 19 November 2002 14:14
> To: Martin Gudgin
> Cc: Sanjiva Weerawarana; WS-Desc WG (Public)
> Subject: Re: Proposal for the removal of the message 
> construct from WSDL 1.2
> 
> 
> +1, this is what I think the AF spec[1] was hinting at. SOAP
> applications would access attachment via the "secondaryPartBag" 
> property and would not have to worry about serialization details.
> 
> Jean-jacques.
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/2/07/SOAP-AF/aftf-soap-af.html
> 
> Martin Gudgin wrote:
> > Personally I'd model attachments using an element decl and 
> figure out 
> > the actual serialization in the binding.
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 19 November 2002 14:13:14 UTC