- From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
- Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 23:40:52 +0600
- To: "Glen Daniels" <gdaniels@sonicsoftware.com>
- Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Hi Glen, > > I think these EDTODOs came from the discussion between Jonathan > > and Glen about F&P, right? Guys, did you mean feature/@required > > when the above says wsdl:required? > > Absolutely, yes. This was apparently a misunderstanding. So should the EDTODO automatically transfer to this or do we need further discussion? Jonathan? > We could do that for a given component, but you still need to talk about it > when you have: > > <interface name="iSvc"> > <feature uri="foo:feature1" required="true"/> > </interface> > <binding interface="iSvc"> > <feature uri="foo:feature1" required="false"/> > </binding> Where in the spec say how these things are spsed to be combined? Without that its hard to say what to do if what's being combined has different @required values. If you look at the features property of binding for example it doesn't say anything about having to compose the properties. What should it say? > > Finally, does the same thing need to be done for property/@required? > > I still don't think that property/@required really makes any sense, but if > we have it it should have the same semantics (an in-scope > property/@required="true" trumps a "false"). Given there's no assigned task to put this in I won't do it. Sanjiva.
Received on Tuesday, 16 March 2004 12:41:53 UTC