Re: PROPOSAL: Drop interface/operation/(input|output)/@headers

"Roberto Chinnici" <Roberto.Chinnici@Sun.COM> writes:
> 
> I'm in favor of this proposal, but I think it should be conditional
> on features/properties being fully clarified and understood.

I understand this concern, but I think they're orthogonal. Even
when we do clarify F&P, I don't expect we will define language
syntax to talk about when headers will be added, who owns them,
who shares them etc. - those will be the purview of the document
specifying each feature (most likely in English or Sinhalese).

> Till then, I'd prefer to keep @headers in, so that we don't risk
> ending up with a net loss of functionality.

Per above, my proposal is that we do lose this functionality 
as a language feature of WSDL. Are you actually proposing that
the F&P clarification will create replacement language syntax
for this? If not these decisions can be decoupled.

> The third change you propose, i.e.
>  >     - rename interface/operation/(infault|outfault)/@details to
>  >       interface/operation/(infault|outfault)/@message
> doesn't affect headers, so I'm +1 on doing it straight away.

Cool.

Sanjiva.

Received on Friday, 24 October 2003 13:43:19 UTC