- From: Asir Vedamuthu <asirv@webmethods.com>
- Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2005 14:05:57 -0500
- To: 'Amelia A Lewis' <alewis@tibco.com>
- Cc: "'www-ws-desc@w3.org'" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Amy, > 1) it can't be validated I didn't say that. It can be validated. But, the order is insignificant. Similar (not the same) to http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2000/11/lc200 (member only). > 2) it's unduly burdensome > That is, the author of a binding, not the author of an interface, That is the tradeoff in this approach. > 3) it's brittle > A deployed service cannot reasonably and easily extend the types > defined for headers in a way that describes new requirements, I like to know how status quo supports this. > 4) it's obscure > Information about binding requirements are buried in the type system, > requiring an author to find the required use (in the example) of I like to know how status quo supports this. BTW, in Part 2, section 3.1.4, http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-wsdl20-extensions-20040803/#adf-dp-desc, required, optional, choice, maxOccurs, etc. are buried in the type system. > /me has a heart attack and sprawls across the road Oh, another one :-) Regards, Asir S Vedamuthu asirv at webmethods dot com http://www.webmethods.com/
Received on Wednesday, 2 February 2005 19:06:33 UTC