RE: message reference component & syntax

Hmmm, last week we discussed this issue but didn't resolve it one way or
the other.  It's recorded as issue #87.  I think such an editorial
change is premature until the WG decides on a resolution to that issue.
Perhaps you could formulate your changes as a proposal?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]
On
> Behalf Of Sanjiva Weerawarana
> Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 3:56 AM
> To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: Re: message reference component & syntax
> 
> 
> I forgot to add ..
> 
> I have dropped the {direction} property from the Message
> Reference component. As we discussed during the last
> telecon, a message reference DOES NOT have such a property
> as the pattern has already chosen and fixed the direction
> the particular message placeholder travels in. That is, if
> the pattern has a placeholder message called XXX, then the
> pattern will of course indicate the source and sink of that
> message. Thus, when describing an operation and associating
> an actual message to the placeholder, the user does not
> have the option of changing the the direction .. its already
> set. Thus, the component does not have such a property.
> 
> Now, the syntax for <operation> still has <input> & <output>.
> I will discuss this issue in the message I promised to send
> below.
> 
> Sanjiva.
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
> To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
> Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 4:49 PM
> Subject: message reference component & syntax
> 
> 
> >
> > In the current draft we have
operation/(input|output)/@messageReference
> > being optional. That doesn't make any sense as we have no rules
> > defined for how to compute its value if its not there. Life ain't
> > going to work without knowing what role a message plays in a
> > message pattern.
> >
> > This is part of a larger set of problems with the syntax we
> > currently have. I will be sending a separate note out about that
> > but wanted to highlight this particular inconsistency first.
> >
> > Sanjiva.
>

Received on Thursday, 18 September 2003 13:02:04 UTC