- From: Dale Moberg <dmoberg@cyclonecommerce.com>
- Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 08:40:53 -0700
- To: "FABLET Youenn" <youenn.fablet@crf.canon.fr>, "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
- Cc: "Roberto Chinnici" <roberto.chinnici@sun.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>, "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>
- Message-ID: <9551E76040A2604BBD331F3024BFEA4801598D06@SEMINOLEVS2.cyclonecommerce.com>
Gudge expressed "reservations" in a forceful way about re-inventing the cardinality apparatus within input,output, and fault. Also the wsdl-MEP combinatorics did not fit with the repeated input element. That would be easily correctable, though, if input, output (and fault?) were allowed to have content models with repeated "part" EIIs. So, my scorecard now shows that the distaste for repeating the cardinality apparatus in attributes on input, etc as being the main obstacle to the Sanjiva compromise approach. Others may be tracking different statistics though. Dale Moberg -----Original Message----- From: FABLET Youenn [mailto:youenn.fablet@crf.canon.fr] Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 12:38 AM To: Sanjiva Weerawarana Cc: Roberto Chinnici; www-ws-desc@w3.org; Jean-Jacques Moreau Subject: Re: On removing messages Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote: "FABLET Youenn" youenn.fablet@crf.canon.fr writes: IMHO, we are searching for a construct quite similar to the xsd:element but a little bit more constrained (fewer properties, no xml-schema children in it) and with a sligthly different semantic. Would it better to add another construct for the purpose of clarity, readability and accuracy, the tradeoff being a (small ?) increase of the complexity ? I am not sure of the answer... Thoughts ? ;-) <wsdl:message> ;-) I am a bit surprised that the proposal I made for how to eliminate message is not interesting to more people. At the F2F, there was a quick presentation of your proposal but since you were not there and given the fact that it was (?) not in synch with the mep thing at that time, it was difficult to discuss deeply your proposal... Basically what I proposed allows one to use a single XSD element or type for the 80% case and IF ONE WISHES to document more than one input or output element or type, then they can indicate it. That's a nice way to cleanly support the attachment stuff, for example (such as additional XML documents or GIF images people may want to send along with their SOAP envelope). It seems like a middle-ground that allows the people happy with just modeling the world with schema to do so, but allows others to life happily too. Sanjiva.
Received on Thursday, 6 February 2003 10:41:34 UTC