- From: <sakatayu@nttdata.co.jp>
- Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:59:41 +0900
- To: "Arthur Ryman" <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
- Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
>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 Thank you for your reply. I have understood the WG solution for my question. However, please allow me to ask one more question I face. I think "<choice>" solution is very smart, but I'm afraid of the case that an interface extends the other interface, and an operation of the extened interface is required to add (or change) inputs which the super interface doesn't have. In WSDL 1.2 concept, in this case, should we define the different operation though the original operation and re-difined one are same semantically? Or have you disucussed a solution? Regards, ---------------------------------------------- NTT Data Corporation Yuji Sakata E-Mail: sakatayu@nttdata.co.jp ----------------------------------------------
Received on Thursday, 3 July 2003 02:59:59 UTC