W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > July 2006

Re: {rpc signature} REQUIRED when rpc style is not specified?

From: Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 22:08:17 -0400
To: "Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Cc: public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org, www-ws-desc@w3.org, www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF736BD18A.F934C12D-ON852571AF.000A5C53-852571AF.000BCFFB@ca.ibm.com>

Arthur Ryman,
IBM Software Group, Rational Division

blog: http://ryman.eclipsedevelopersjournal.com/
phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411
fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
mobile: +1-416-939-5063, text: 4169395063@fido.ca

"Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com> 
Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
07/12/2006 02:26 PM

{rpc signature} REQUIRED when rpc style is not specified?

AIUI, this fulfills AIs assigned variously to me and John Kaputin.
Section 4.1.1 of the Adjuncts specifies {rpc signature} as a required 
property.  Per our recent clarifications, this will appear in the 
component model whenever the implementation supports the rpc extension. 
Thus, even if the {style} property does not include the rpc-style uri, the 
{rpc signature} property will appear.  No default value is supplied 
Instead, I believe it would be cleaner to make the {rpc property} 
optional, and state that when the rpc style is engaged, the property MUST 
 [  Jonathan Marsh  ][  jmarsh@microsoft.com  ][  
http://auburnmarshes.spaces.msn.com  ]
Received on Tuesday, 18 July 2006 02:08:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:07:00 UTC