W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > October 2004

Re: SOAP Modules and Features (LC18, LC29b)

From: Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 08:10:30 -0700
To: Glen Daniels <gdaniels@sonicsoftware.com>
Cc: Asir Vedamuthu <asirv@webmethods.com>, hadley@Sun.COM, WS Description List <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Message-id: <58B6C094-2373-11D9-9E63-000A95BC8D92@Sun.COM>

Your line of reasoning for not indicating the relationship between 
features and modules seems reasonable to me.


On Oct 21, 2004, at 12:00 AM, Glen Daniels wrote:

> Hi Marc, Asir:
> You both raise issues regarding the lack of explicit relationship
> between SOAP Modules and Features as defined by WSDL.  Asir asks 
> whether
> we should have text which describes that Modules can implement 
> Features,
> and Marc asks whether there should be some (syntactic?) reference from
> Modules declared in a binding/endpoint to Features declared elsewhere.
> Marc:  We discussed this at the F2F in Toronto, and decided that an
> explicit syntax for this kind of thing isn't necessary.  By virtue of
> the fact that you understand the SOAP Module URI, you understand which,
> if any, abstract features the module implements.  And if you don't
> understand a given (non-required) SOAP Module, you can't use it to
> confirm implementation of any features at all, since you don't know 
> what
> it is and won't be using it.
> The only real use I could see for having an explicit syntax for
> describing which Modules implement which Features would be to allow 
> tools which did NOT in fact understand the Modules/Features in question
> to decide if the WSDL seemed valid or not.  This doesn't seem all that
> useful to me in the first place, and in the second, it provides an
> opportunity for a mismatch between the claims of the WSDL and the 
> claims
> of the specifications.  The specs (and the code written to implement
> them) should always be the final arbiter.  Therefore I think we should
> take no action with respect to LC29b.
> Asir: Although we had originally rolled 18 in with 29b, I just reread
> the text you point to, and I do think we could profitably add some text
> which describes the fact that Features in fact are typically
> resolved/implemented by bindings or Modules, and that Modules can
> satisfy abstract Feature requirements.  I think this might help with
> Marc's concern as well, without going so far as to generate a syntactic
> connection between the two.  I'll volunteer to write this (i.e. switch
> my ACTION from writing this email to writing some resolution text :)).
> Seem reasonable?
> --Glen
Marc Hadley <marc.hadley at sun.com>
Web Technologies and Standards, Sun Microsystems.
Received on Thursday, 21 October 2004 15:10:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:06:45 UTC