- From: Asir Vedamuthu <asirv@webmethods.com>
- Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 21:15:56 -0400
- To: 'Mark Nottingham' <mark.nottingham@bea.com>, www-ws-desc@w3.org
> if you specify anything about an operation, > the defaulting mechanism described no longer > applies to that operation as a whole That was my concern too. > I recommend that Issue 212 be dropped with no action +1 Asir -----Original Message----- From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Mark Nottingham Sent: Monday, June 21, 2004 8:09 PM To: www-ws-desc@w3.org Subject: Issue 212: binding defaulting clarification One of the concerns raised regarding the proposed resolution to issue 212 was that there might be a conflict or misalignment between this proposal and the defaulting strategy described in part 3. Because I was reviewing the documents part-by-part when making these comments, I wasn't aware of them, and I believe this is a legitimate concern. Weighing the two approaches, part 3's is attractive because allows selectivity; i.e., one can specify some operation-specific properties, while still falling back to defaults for other properties in the same operation. However, the approach taken in part three requires that every defined property specify a defaulting syntax; if it does not, there is no way to default that property, and properties will need to be duplicated throughout the different components of the binding. The approach proposed for issue 212, on the other hand, is not selective; if you specify anything about an operation, the defaulting mechanism described no longer applies to that operation as a whole. However, there is no special accommodation required for properties to use this mechanism, unlike that described in part 3. It might be possible to design a third option that is both selective and generic with respect to properties, but I'm concerned that the rules for such a defaulting scheme would be unnecessarily complex and therefore confusing. As a result, unless the WG is interested in developing this third option, I recommend that Issue 212 be dropped with no action, because the approach proposed for it is less powerful than that described in part 3. Regards, -- Mark Nottingham Principal Technologist Office of the CTO BEA Systems
Received on Monday, 21 June 2004 21:18:56 UTC