- From: Ramkumar Menon <ramkumar.menon@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 22:20:40 -0700
- To: "Rogers, Tony" <Tony.Rogers@ca.com>
- Cc: "Arthur Ryman" <ryman@ca.ibm.com>, www-ws-desc@w3.org, www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
- Message-ID: <22bb8a4e0605292220wab581b2k941363c8dec90128@mail.gmail.com>
Thanks Tony, Arthur. That clarifies things a lot. regards, Ram On 5/29/06, Rogers, Tony <Tony.Rogers@ca.com> wrote: > > As far as the bindings referenced by endpoints, no, these need not refer > to interfaces. If you read about "reusable" bindings in the Primer you'll > see that there's a good case for using bindings that do not refer to > interfaces - that's what Arthur was referring to by "generic" bindings. > > Tony Rogers > CA, Inc > Senior Architect, Development > tony.rogers@ca.com > co-chair UDDI TC at OASIS > co-chair WS-Desc WG at W3C > > ------------------------------ > *From:* www-ws-desc-request@w3.org on behalf of Ramkumar Menon > *Sent:* Tue 30-May-06 13:41 > *To:* Arthur Ryman > *Cc:* www-ws-desc@w3.org; www-ws-desc-request@w3.org > *Subject:* Re: "interface" attribute info item on service component > > > Hi Arthur, > > Thanks for the detailed explanation. > Maybe I was not clear in my question (1) . > I was explicitly referring to the "interface" attribute on the <service> > nodes. Woudnt the interfaces that are referred to as attributes on the > <service> nodes need to have atleast one operation within them, either > declared / inherited ? Would it make sense to explicitly state this in the > spec ? > Similarly, for the second question, I was referring to those bindings that > are referred to from within the <endpoint> node as an attribute - wdnt these > referred bindings need to be referring to an interface mandatorily ? Again, > if it makes sense, would it better if we explicitly state ithis in the spec > ? > > I would also appreciate your thoughts on point (3). > > Thanks again! > > rgds, > Ram > > > On 5/29/06, Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com> wrote: > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > -- > Shift to the left, shift to the right! > Pop up, push down, byte, byte, byte! > > -Ramkumar Menon > A typical Macroprocessor > -- Shift to the left, shift to the right! Pop up, push down, byte, byte, byte! -Ramkumar Menon A typical Macroprocessor
Received on Tuesday, 30 May 2006 05:20:46 UTC