Re: Issue with binding message references in the abstract component model

Hi Roberto,

> Following the WG's decision to rename the "name" attribute of the
> wsdl:input and wsdl:output elements to "messageReference", and
> correspondingly to rename the {name} property of the message
> reference component to {messageReference}, we ended up with a
> mismatch between the interface-level message reference components
> and the binding-level ones.
> At the interface level, we have a message reference component with
> a {messageReference} property and a fault reference component with
> a {name} property. Although the latter needs more work to bring it
> into the new brave message-free world, I assume we won't modify its
> {name} property; unlike the old message reference component's {name},
> the {name} of a fault reference component is indeed arbitrarily
> chosen by the WSDL author and it doesn't depend on the MEP in use.

I know I don't understand the fault rules etc. in the MEP stuff
yet, but why doesn't the name matter for faults too? In a complex
MEP there can be faults going in different directions etc. and 
in such cases it seems to be necessary to say which fault I'm
talking about when I indicate the actual message contents.

+1 to the proposal to rename binding/operation/(input|output)/@name
to @messageReference.


Received on Sunday, 21 September 2003 13:28:33 UTC