Re: "operation name" .. an alternate proposal

• From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
• Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2004 23:47:33 +0600
• To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
• Message-ID: <17fa01c46513$a75de8b0$84614109@LANKABOOK>

"Umit Yalcinalp" <umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com> writes:
> 
> In essence, your proposal requires utilizing the soap action feature, 
> doesn't it?
> 
> --umit

I didn't think an abstract concept without any binding would be
of much use. Since we already have wsoap:action in our binding,
I was proposing to map to that. However, I neglected to note that
in order to do that properly we'd have to move wsoap:action
to each message level rather than keeping it at the operation
level:

    <operation ref="xs:QName" 
               wsoap:mep="xs:anyURI"? >
      <documentation />?

      <wsoap:module ... />*

      <input messageLabel="xs:NCName"? wsoap:action="xs:anyURI"? >
        <documentation />?
        <wsoap:module ... />*
        <feature ... />*
        <property ... />*
      </input>*

      <output messageLabel="xs:NCName"? wsoap:action="xs:anyURI"? >
        <documentation />?
        <wsoap:module ... />*
        <feature ... />*
        <property ... />*
      </output>*

      <feature ... />*
      <property ... />*
    </operation>*

IMO that makes perfect sense .. at least if you accept the rationale
I gave for this proposal.

Sanjiva.

Received on Thursday, 8 July 2004 13:48:09 UTC