Re: message reference component & syntax

Oops, my apologies. I will put back the stuff I deleted there
until this gets resolved. 

Sanjiva.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
To: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>; <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 11:02 PM
Subject: 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 17:22:04 UTC