RE: features and requiredness

I added the issue "f&p at the service level" to the issues list (157).
Can we adjust the composition model temporarily until we pick up this
issue?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]
On
> Behalf Of Sanjiva Weerawarana
> Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 11:19 AM
> To: Jean-Jacques Moreau; Umit Yalcinalp
> Cc: Glen Daniels; www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: Re: features and requiredness
> 
> 
> We need to either adopt this or fix the draft - it talks about
> F&P in <service> in the composition model and we currently
> don't allow it in <service>. Something's gotta give.
> 
> Sanjiva.
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>
> To: "Umit Yalcinalp" <umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com>
> Cc: "Glen Daniels" <gdaniels@sonicsoftware.com>; "Sanjiva Weerawarana"
> <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>; <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
> Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 11:03 PM
> Subject: Re: features and requiredness
> 
> 
> > +1 as well.
> >
> > Umit Yalcinalp wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Glen Daniels wrote:
> > >
> > >>>We don't currently allow features and props inside <service>.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>Ah, my bad.  I just went back and read the mail about that, and
would
> like
> > >>to propose again (with feeling this time) that we support F&P
inside
> > >><service>.  I believe with the scoping rules laid out in the two
> messages I
> > >>sent, we have a solid enough foundation to clearly understand what
> this
> > >>means (F&P are in scope for every interaction with that
<service>).
> > >>
> > >>--Glen
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > > +1, of course :-)
> > >
> > > --
> > > Umit Yalcinalp
> > > Consulting Member of Technical Staff
> > > ORACLE
> > > Phone: +1 650 607 6154
> > > Email: umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com
> > >

Received on Thursday, 18 March 2004 16:36:06 UTC