- From: David Booth <dbooth@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2005 12:02:37 -0400
- To: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
- Cc: Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com>, www-ws-desc@w3.org
On Fri, 2005-04-15 at 20:31, Martin Gudgin wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: David Booth [mailto:dbooth@w3.org] > > . . . > > I think it would be considerably clearer if the component model for a > > "WSDL 2.0 document"*** (see below) would consist of all and > > *only* those > > components that are supposed to be visible to that WSDL 2.0 document > > (which in the A-imports-B-imports-C example would include components > > that originated from B but NOT those that originated from C). > > Is there > > some reason why you think this approach would be inadequate? > > Well, it would mean that some of the components of B would be > 'incomplete' because the components from C that they refer to would be > missing. Not if B has its own component model, as you go on to suggest . . . > > I wonder if what we actually have is a component model for the root > which includes imported components and a separate component model for > each imported namespace (recurse as necessary). Bingo. I think that approach would be considerably clearer, because there would be a more direct correspondence between each WSDL 2.0 document and its projection into a component model, rather than a single, collapsed component model for all, with special rules that govern which components are supposed to be visible at what points. -- David Booth W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard
Received on Saturday, 16 April 2005 16:02:40 UTC