- 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