- From: John Kaputin <KAPUTIN@uk.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 14:00:38 +0100
- To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
I am trying to implement the WSDL 2.0 spec with an API that matches the WSDL 2.0 component model, but I see that the property name inconsistencies reported previously still exist in the spec. I couldn't see any entries in the Issues Lists about this. Can anyone on the WG indicate if/when these will be corrected? There were two issues: 1. the word 'reference' was incorrectly used in some property names to refer to components that were not XXXReference components 2. whether to use short-hand names like {fault} and {faults} or full descriptive names like {interface fault} and {binding faults} I am most concerned with issue 1. Three property name changes are required: FaultReference {fault reference} becomes {fault} or {interface fault} (because the property refers to an InterfaceFault component) BindingFault {fault reference} becomes {fault} or {interface fault} (because the property refers to an InterfaceFault component) BindingOperation {operation reference} becomes {operation} or {interface operation} (because the property refers to an InterfaceOperation component) Note, the following uses of 'reference' are correct: InterfaceOperation {fault references} .... a set of FaultReference InterfaceOperation {message references} .... a set of MessageReference BindingMessageReference {message reference} .... a MessageReference BindingOperation {message references} .... a set of Binding Message Reference (1) BindingOperation {fault references} .... a set of BindingFaultReference (2) BindingFaultReference {fault reference} .... a FaultReference (1) so maybe {binding message references} could be used? (2) so maybe {binding fault references}? John Kaputin Hursley Laboratory IBM UK ----- Forwarded by John Kaputin/UK/IBM on 31/03/2005 12:02 ----- Asir Vedamuthu <asirv@webmetho ds.com> To John Kaputin/UK/IBM@IBMGB, 11/02/2005 www-ws-desc@w3.org 22:22 cc Subject RE: Consistency of WSDL Component property names +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 Thursday, 31 March 2005 13:06:40 UTC