Re: Part 1: Component reference vs. QName

Asir,

I was in the process of writing a thorough explanation of why the spec
is the way it is, but I think you ran into a real issue.

At some point we allowed "generic" binding components (i.e. those with
an unspecified {interface} property) to contain Binding Fault and
Binding Operation components, but that functionality is gone (see third
paragraph of section 2.9.1). The use of QNames to refer to Interface
Fault/Operation(s) from in Binding Fault/Operation(s) is a vestige of
those days.

As things stand now, this use of QNames is inconsistent with the rest
of the specification, so I'd be in favor of using actual components
instead.

Unless I'm missing something, of course!

Roberto


Asir Vedamuthu wrote:
> Paul,
> 
> 
>>There was some discussion of this following the proposal to 
>>hoist faults:
>>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jan/0062.html
> 
> 
> Thank you. I read this thread. My question is not at the XML representation
> level but, at the -component- level. Let me quote from part 1,
> 
> "{fault reference} REQUIRED. A wsdls:QName as defined by 2.15.5 QName Type
> which refers to an Interface Fault component in the {faults} property of the
> Interface component identified by the {interface} property of the parent
> Binding component. This is the Interface Fault component for which binding
> information is being specified." [1]
> 
> Let me re-state my question. {fault reference} property appears to be a
> component reference. Per part 1, {fault reference} property is a
> wsdls:QName.  Thus, the following two properties stand out,
> 
> (a) Binding Fault Component.{fault reference}
> (b) Binding Operation Component.{operation reference}
> 
> Their values are of type wsdls:QName instead of Interface Fault/Operation
> component. Is that intentional?
> 
> [1]
> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20.html?content-
> type=text/html%3B0charset=utf-8#Binding_Fault_details
> 
> Asir
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: paul.downey@bt.com [mailto:paul.downey@bt.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2004 9:41 AM
> To: asirv@webmethods.com; www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Part 1: Component reference vs. QName
> 
> 
> Asir,
> 
> AIUI fault and operations are identified using ncnames, but referenced
> using qnames, since the same fault name may exist in one or more interface. 
> 
> There was some discussion of this following the proposal to hoist faults:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jan/0062.html
> 
> HTH
> Paul
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Asir Vedamuthu
> Sent: 15 July 2004 13:39
> To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: Part 1: Component reference vs. QName
> 
> 
> 
> In part 1 component model, the following properties (see below) appear to be
> component references but, they are described as QNames. Is that intentional?
> 
> - Binding Fault Component.{fault reference} [1]
> - Binding Operation Component.{operation reference} [2]
> 
> [1]
> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20.html?content-
> type=text/html%3B0charset=utf-8#Binding_Fault_details
> 
> [2]
> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20.html?content-
> type=text/html%3B0charset=utf-8#Binding_Operation_details
> 
> Regards,
> Asir S Vedamuthu
> asirv at webmethods dot com
> http://www.webmethods.com/

Received on Friday, 16 July 2004 18:17:43 UTC