- From: Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
- Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 10:38:05 -0400
- To: sakatayu@nttdata.co.jp
- Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org, www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
- Message-ID: <OFA1401EB2.C8148577-ON85256D57.004F019A@torolab.ibm.com>
Sakata-san,
You are asking for operator overloading, i.e. the ability to distinguish
operations that have the same name but different inputs. The WG decided to
not allow that.
If you have a logical operation that can take different inputs, then you
can model it as one operation that takes a complex type based on <choice>.
[1]
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Jun/0142.html
--Arthur Ryman
sakatayu@nttdata.co.jp
Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
07/01/2003 09:07 PM
To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
cc:
Subject: equivalence of interface operations
Hi, all.
Now I try to understand WSDL 1.2 Core Language.
I have a comment about equivalence of interface operations.
The document says in 2.7.1,"For each interface operation component in
the {operations} property of an interface component the combination of
{name} and {target namespace} properties must be unique."
So in this specification, we can't define operations whose {name} and
{taenget namespace} are same but input or output are different.
Besides, it also describes in 2.15, that {name} and {taenget namespace}
is enough information to verify two operations are syntactically same
(that is ,their messages, interfaces, bindings and services are same) .
But I think it may be not convenient when we want to define semantically
same operations with differenet message and this specification had
better allow to define multiple operations whose {name} and {target
namespace} are same.
How about it?
Regards,
----------------------------------------------
NTT Data Corporation
Yuji Sakata
E-Mail: sakatayu@nttdata.co.jp
----------------------------------------------
Received on Wednesday, 2 July 2003 10:55:12 UTC