Re: Requiredness (two issues)

+1 for both. 


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Glen Daniels" <>
To: <>
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2004 10:09 PM
Subject: Requiredness (two issues)

> Hi WSDL'ers:
> Two related things:
> -1-
> First off, I continue to believe that the "required" flag on properties
> is NOT necessary.  Property values/constraints simply make the specified
> values available to the runtime.  If you think about why you would ever
> want to require setting a particular property, you can achieve the same
> result by simply requiring a component (feature/module/binding) which
> uses that property.
> Any binding or SOAP module which utilizes particular properties will be
> able to pull the values/constraints for those properties out of the
> component model.  Certain specs may have defined default values for
> properties, so if values for those properties are not expressed in the
> WSDL, they would take on the defaults.  If a property is needed by a
> given feature/binding/module and NOT specified in the WSDL, then this
> would be an error, but I don't think that a "required" flag on the
> property value/constraint helps this situation at all.  Understanding a
> particular feature/binding/module implies understanding the property set
> which is required.
> I propose we pull this out of the spec, which would simplify both the
> prose and the model.
> -2-
> Second, reading through the way we specify the co-occurrence constraint
> between property/constraint and property/value, I found it a little
> confusing.  I think it would be nice to explicitly say something up
> front along the lines of:
> "{value} OPTIONAL.  The value of the property.  If {value} is specified,
> the effect is to force a particular value for the {constraint} property
> (see below)."
> Thoughts?
> --Glen

Received on Monday, 26 July 2004 13:36:15 UTC