Re: "interface" attribute info item on service component

Ram,

It might be useful to have an interface that just defined faults, so -1 to 
requiring one or more operations.

An endpoint refers to a single binding. If the binding refers to an 
interface, it must be the same as the service's interface. Note that 
generic "interfaceless" bindings are possible.

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



"Ramkumar Menon" <ramkumar.menon@gmail.com> 
Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
05/23/2006 02:36 PM

To
www-ws-desc@w3.org
cc

Subject
"interface" attribute info item on service component







Three fundamental questions.

Would it be useful to add a clause for the <service> component stating
The "interface" attribute information item should point to an
interface that has non zero number of "operation" element information
items within it.
If not, we cd as well have service components that could possible be
empty, and allow them to extend other service components, reflecting
the same semantics we have defined for interface inheritance -
considering that one service component is related to exactly one
interface.

Am I right if I state that if all "binding" attribute info items that
had been defined on the endpoint node should have been associated with
an  "interface" attribute information item? What does it mean to be
otherwise ?

Moreover, if the service component has an interface attribute info
item that extends from two other interfaces, can the endpoint defined
within it refer to bindings that were defined for the parent
interfaces ? If yes/no, should this be reflected in the core language
spec ?

rgds,
Ram
-- 
Shift to the left, shift to the right!
Pop up, push down, byte, byte, byte!

-Ramkumar Menon
 A typical Macroprocessor