Re: problem with pattern attribute definition?

Arthur,

On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 11:24:47 -0500
Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com> wrote:
>I agree this is a problem. If an AII is REQUIRED, it MUST be present
>in the XML document. Therefore, the following statement is
>inconsistent:
>
>The actual value of the pattern attribute information item; otherwise 
>'http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/wsdl/in-out'. 

Good; that's what I thought as well.  That's how we do other properties, such as messageLabel, that have default values.

>I recall at one point in time we discussed having a default value. 
>However, these spec doesn't seem to indicate that we went that way.

It may have gotten dropped in editing, then.  I remember the argument well, if only because I was on the losing side, having fought the good fight.  The result of it was that in-out is considered to be so common an idiom that it ought *not* require the pattern attribute.  That is, we ended up setting the in-out pattern as the default value of the pattern attribute, as the above statement indicates.

>To resolve this, either
>1) remove the otherwise clause

I believe that this would reverse the resolution of the issue that was raised.

>2) or, define the default and make the attribute OPTIONAL

I believe that this was the previous resolution.  I think that the failure to mark the attribute OPTIONAL is simply an oversight, when the previous resolution was implemented.  If someone can identify the issue, I believe that the record of the issue and its resolution will support this, and I say this as the primary *opponent* of the resolution adopted.

>The component model propery is REQUIRED in either case.

Yes; no change is needed there.

Amy!
-- 
Amelia A. Lewis
Senior Architect
TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc.
alewis@tibco.com

Received on Friday, 8 December 2006 16:45:05 UTC