- From: Roberto Chinnici <Roberto.Chinnici@Sun.COM>
- Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2003 10:30:14 -0800
- To: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
- Cc: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, WS Description WG <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
+1 to everything Jacek said. "interfaceBinding" is quite a mouthful. Roberto -- Roberto Chinnici Web Technologies and Standards Sun Microsystems, Inc. roberto.chinnici@sun.com Jacek Kopecky wrote: >Philippe, others, > >I like renaming portType to interface and port into endpoint (notice >lower-case 'p' as I think it's now one word, I guess I could live with >endPoint, too, but I think it would be confusing). > >I don't like the binding renaming to interfaceBinding, I'd keep >'binding' because it's shorter and I think it's clear from the context >that it is an interface binding (especially if, as I expect, the >attribute 'type' is renamed to 'interface'). Otherwise we could have >endpoint -> interfaceEndpoint or even interfaceBindingEndpoint and so >on. > >Best regards, > > Jacek Kopecky > > Senior Architect, Systinet Corporation > http://www.systinet.com/ > > > > > >On Wed, 2003-02-26 at 21:20, Philippe Le Hegaret wrote: > > >>[I thought I sent these yesterday but don't see it in the archives, so >>sending it again] >> >>I've got an action item to start a proposal on renaming elements and/or >>attributes in WSDL 1.2. This proposal is based on the latest WSDL 1.2 >>drafts and the requirements document. I'll keep track of sub-sequa=ente >>proposals >> >>- portType >> The requirements document has the following: >> [[ >> Interface (AKA Port Type) >> [Definition: A logical grouping of operations. An Interface represents >> an abstract Web Service type, independent of transmission protocol and >> data format.] >> ]] >> http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-ws-desc-reqs-20021028/#normDefs >> >>In 2.4.2 XML Representation of Port Type Component: >>http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-wsdl12-20030124/#PortType_XMLRep >> >> A [local name] of portType >> >> would read >> >> A [local name] of interface >> >>- EndPoint (AKA Port) >> The requirements document has the following: >> [[ >> EndPoint (AKA Port) >> [Definition: An association between a fully-specified InterfaceBinding >> and a network address, specified by a URI [IETF RFC 2396], that may be >> used to communicate with an instance of a Web Service. An EndPoint >> indicates a specific location for accessing a Web Service using a >> specific protocol and data format.] >> ]] >> http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-wsdl12-20030124/#Port_XMLRep >> >>In 2.11.2 XML Representation of Port Component >> >> A [local name] of port >> >> would read >> >> A [local name] of endPoint >> >> >>We may also do the following but, if we don't, I'll recommend changing >>the glossary of our requirements document. >> >>- binding >> The requirements document has the following: >> [[ >> InterfaceBinding >> [Definition: An association between an Interface, a concrete protocol >> and/or a data format. An InterfaceBinding specifies the protocol >> and/or data format to be used in transmitting Messages defined by the >> associated Interface.] >> ]] >> http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-ws-desc-reqs-20021028/#normDefs >> >>In 2.7.2 XML Representation of Binding Component >>In http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-wsdl12-20030124/#Binding_XMLRep >> >> A [local name] of binding >> >> would read >> >> A [local name] of interfaceBinding >> >> >> >> > > >
Received on Sunday, 2 March 2003 13:32:41 UTC