RE: Requiredness (two issues)

Hi Umit! 

> >I propose we pull this out of the spec, which would simplify 
> both the 
> >prose and the model.
> >
> I am against pulling this out of the spec.
> 
>  From my perspective, requiring a property to be present and 
> having a specific value/constraint is a configuration option 
> . A feature may be required and can utilize a set of 
> properties, but not necessarily all of them. When WSDL 
> specifies a specific configuration with a required property, 
> this means that the property must be present and must have 
> the value/satisfy the constraint at runtime. For example if 
> my feature uses a property, requiring a specific value means 
> that a particular configuration is specified by WSDL. 
> Otherwise it will be an error. This is very different than 
> requiring the feature to be present. A feature is required or 
> not. However, properties may have a range of values. If we 
> don't allow requiring a specific value for a property, this 
> will minimize the usability of configurations with properties 
> and it will be harder to explain.

Wait - I don't understand.  What is the difference between "requiring a
specific value for a property" and using property/value?

> As a matter of fact, requiredness covers a range of problems 
> that compositions with properties were intending to address 
> ("all"). As composition operators are not available at 
> present in WSDL, I don't want to remove the requiredness of 
> properties as it will hinder the usability of properties.

I think maybe we're having a misunderstanding here - AFAIK, when you
specify a property value or constraint in WSDL, you are precisely
"requiring" the value at runtime to meet the constraint or specific
value which you have specified.  What more do you need?  I think you can
achieve everything you want with fewer moving parts, which to me is a
VERY good thing (and for that matter, easier to explain).

--Glen

Received on Monday, 26 July 2004 19:42:23 UTC