RE: operation name uniqueness draft available

Ok, thanks for the explanation Gudge.

As a follow up question.  It is ok then, for a port element to provide "the
particulars of a specific end-point" at which a *subset* of the service's
operations are available.  In other words, it is perfectly legal for only a
subset of the operations to be available at the end point address specified
by any of the service element's port children?

sgg
++++++++
Steve Graham
sggraham@us.ibm.com
(919)254-0615 (T/L 444)
Emerging Technologies
++++++++



                                                                                                                                       
                      "Martin Gudgin"                                                                                                  
                      <mgudgin@microsof        To:       Steve Graham/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS                                                
                      t.com>                   cc:       <www-ws-desc@w3.org>                                                          
                      Sent by:                 Subject:  RE: operation name uniqueness draft available                                 
                      www-ws-desc-reque                                                                                                
                      st@w3.org                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                       
                      01/23/2003 01:03                                                                                                 
                      PM                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                       





[inline]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Graham [mailto:sggraham@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: 22 January 2003 16:19
> To: Martin Gudgin
> Subject: Re: operation name uniqueness draft available
>
>
>
> ok more interpretation help.  If appropriate, you can respond
> to the list, if you think others would be interested in this
> clarification.
>
> If I have a usual portType hierarchy:
>
> ptA
>
> ptB
>
> ptC extends ptA and ptB
>
> Question 1: Can I have a constellation of 3 bindings, assume
> here they are all soap/http bindings.
>
> bindingA type=ptA
> bindingB type=ptB
> bindingC type=ptC
>
> or am I forced to have a single binding?  (and thereby
> require a most derived portType for any set of porttypes that
> I want to associate with a service.

Multiple bindings is perfectly legal.

>
> Question 2: Can I declare a service that declares ports for
> different subsets of the service's portTypes?
>
> <service name="foo" implements "ptA ptB ptC">
>   <port name="ptAport" binding="bindingA" > ... </>
>   <port name="ptBport" binding="bindingB" > ... </>
>   <port name="ptCport" binding="bindingC" > ... </>
> </service>
>
> or am I forced to have a single port that describes the
> soap/http endpoint to the entire set of operations on the service?

You can do what you have above ( although I would note that the status
quo does not have an implements attribute, look at the mapping section
2.10.3 to see how the port types property gets populated. )

Gudge

>
> sgg
>
> ++++++++
> Steve Graham
> sggraham@us.ibm.com
> (919)254-0615 (T/L 444)
> Emerging Technologies
> ++++++++
>
>
>
>
>
>
>                       "Martin Gudgin"
>
>
>                       <mgudgin@microsof        To:
> <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
>
>                       t.com>                   cc:
>
>
>                       Sent by:                 Subject:
> operation name uniqueness draft available
>
>                       www-ws-desc-reque
>
>
>                       st@w3.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>                       01/22/2003 03:09
>
>
>                       PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> An initial draft that deals with the operation name
> uniqueness issue we identified this week in AZ is at[1]
>
> Draft contains diff markup so it should be easy to spot the changes.
>
> Best practice note is not in the draft yet.
>
> Gudge
>
> [1]
> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl12/wsdl12
.xml?rev=1.37.2.1
&content-type=text/xml

Received on Thursday, 23 January 2003 13:29:55 UTC