Re: Proposal: abstract faults

+1 .. operations have QNames to enable inheritance and so should
faults.

Isn't the binding syntax a bit messed up? I think the fault
name should be on /binding/fault rather than /binding/fault/
wsoap:fault IIRC.

Sanjiva.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Glen Daniels" <gdaniels@sonicsoftware.com>
To: "Amelia A Lewis" <alewis@tibco.com>; <paul.downey@bt.com>
Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 4:57 AM
Subject: Re: Proposal: abstract faults


> 
> +1 to Amy - QNames would be better.
> 
> --Glen
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Amelia A Lewis" <alewis@tibco.com>
> To: <paul.downey@bt.com>
> Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
> Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 12:44 PM
> Subject: Re: Proposal: abstract faults
> 
> 
> > 
> > On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:37:32 +0000
> > paul.downey@bt.com wrote:
> > 
> > > TBH I'd prefer to avoid QNames if at all possible. I thought as there
> > > was only one interface in a WSDL 2.0, an NCName was sufficient.
> > 
> > Huh?  Interface inheritance means that, in WSDL 2.0, you could have
> > lots&lots (that's more than "many", I think) of interfaces in a single
> > document.  And lots&lots&lots more once you start importing and
> > including.
> > 
> > > *but* for orthogonality the fault name should be of the same type as
> > > operation name in the <binding>. Looking at the <binding>, i notice
> > > the operation name is linked to the interface using a QName. 
> > > 
> > > Does that mean that a binding can refer to an operation in another
> > > WSDL ?
> > 
> > In an imported or included WSDL, you mean?  Yes.  Note that import
> > requires a different namespace than the definitions/@targetNamespace of
> > the current WSDL.
> > 
> > Amy!
> > -- 
> > Amelia A. Lewis
> > Architect, TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc.
> > alewis@tibco.com
> > 
> >

Received on Saturday, 20 December 2003 00:12:04 UTC