- From: Asir Vedamuthu <asirv@webmethods.com>
- Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 14:22:47 -0800
- To: 'John Kaputin' <KAPUTIN@uk.ibm.com>, www-ws-desc@w3.org
+1, continuing along these lines, I request the following changes ... Binding Operation.{operation reference} => Binding Operation.{interface operation} Binding Operation.{message references} => Binding Operation.{binding message references} Taking LC55 [1] into account ... Binding Fault Reference.{fault reference} => Binding Fault Reference.{interface fault reference} Binding Message Reference.{message reference} => Binding Message Reference.{interface message reference} I request the WG to consider the following ... Similar to (Interface Operation, Binding Operation), (Interface Fault, Binding Fault), ... Fault Reference => Interface Fault Reference Message Reference => Interface Message Reference That leads to ... Interface Operation.{fault references} => Interface Operation.{interface fault references} Interface Operation.{message references} => Interface Operation.{interface message references} [1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC55 Regards, Asir S Vedamuthu asirv at webmethods dot com http://www.webmethods.com/ -----Original Message----- From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of John Kaputin Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2005 8:04 AM To: www-ws-desc@w3.org Subject: Consistency of WSDL Component property names I'd like to suggest some improvements in the consistency of property names in the Component Model (WSDL 2.0 Part 1 spec, Section 2 Component Model) ElementDeclaration is referred to by properties in various components: Description has property {element declarations} - a set of ElementDeclaration InterfaceFault has property {element} - an ElementDeclaration MessageReference has property {element} - an ElementDeclaration For clarity, could same name be used for properties that refer to the same type of component (with adjustments for plural or singular): Description {elements} InterfaceFault {element} MessageReference {element} ================== There is a similar inconsistency with the names of fault properties: Interface {faults} - a set of InterfaceFault InterfaceOperation {fault references} - a set of FaultReference FaultReference {fault reference} - an InterfaceFault BindingFault {fault reference} - an InterfaceFault The use of {fault references} for InterfaceOperation makes sense, but its use in FaultReference and BindingFault is confusing. For example, a FaultReference {fault reference} refers to an InterfaceFault that must be a member of the parent Interface {faults} so why not use the same property name for both? In this example, the {fault reference} property in FaultReference and BindingFault could be simply {fault}, thus: FaultReference {fault} - an InterfaceFault BindingFault {fault} - an InterfaceFault ========================== Perhaps property names could be made not only consistent but more descriptive by basing them on the name of the Component they refer to. This would facilitate the creation of APIs based closely on the WSDL Component Model that are more descriptive (eg: the getter/setter methods for properties). Thus... Description {element declarations} - a set of ElementDeclaration InterfaceFault {element declaration} - an ElementDeclaration MessageReference {element declaration} - an ElementDeclaration and... Interface {interface faults} - a set of InterfaceFault InterfaceOperation {fault references} - a set of FaultReference FaultReference {interface fault} - an InterfaceFault BindingFault {interface fault} - an InterfaceFault This would also clarify the use of operations and faults across Interfaces and Bindings: Interface {fault} - an InterfaceFault Binding {fault} - a BindingFault could become... Interface {interface fault} - an InterfaceFault Binding {binding fault} - a BindingFault And.... Interface {operations} - a set of InterfaceOperation Binding {operations} - a set of BindingOperation could become... Interface {interface operations} - a set of InterfaceOperation Binding {binding operations} - a set of BindingOperation regards, John Kaputin Hursley Laboratory IBM UK Ltd
Received on Friday, 11 February 2005 22:52:23 UTC