- From: John Kaputin (gmail) <jakaputin@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 10:47:57 +0100
- To: "Arthur Ryman" <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
- Cc: "John Kaputin" <KAPUTIN@uk.ibm.com>, woden-dev@ws.apache.org, www-ws-desc@w3.org, www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
- Message-ID: <4c2ae8f80605300247t1524c9bci3a0f48c119812f7e@mail.gmail.com>
Arthur, you wrote: 3.2 For Binding Fault Reference, the value is equal to the whttp:transferCoding attribute if present, else the {http transfer coding default} property of the associated Binding Fault component if present else the {http transfer coding default} property of the parent Binding Operation, if present else the {http transfer coding default} property of the grandparent Binding, if present else the property if absent In the current editor's copy {http transfer coding} is not an extension property of the BindingFaultReference component and the whttp:transferCoding attribute is not defined for the wsdl:infault and wsdl:outfault elements of the wsdl:binding. I assume you are proposing that {http transfer coding} should be defined for BindingFaultReference (i.e. given that {http transfer coding default} is defined for BindingFault). Correct? regards, John Kaputin On 5/29/06, Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com> wrote: > > > John, > > I'm not an author of that part of the spec, but I agree with you that it > looks wrong. Here is my attempt at a sensible interpretation: > > 1. The {http transfer coding default} property should be an OPTIONAL > property of the Binding, Binding Fault, and Binding Operation components. If > present, this value provides a default for the {http transfer coding} of > related Binding Message Reference and Binding Fault Reference components as > described below. > > 2. The {http transfer coding} property should be an OPTIONAL property of > Binding Message Reference and Binding Fault Reference. If absent, then no > transfer coding is used for the associated message (normal or fault). > > 3. The value of {http transfer coding} is determined as follows: > > 3.1 For Binding Message Reference, the value is equal to the > whttp:transferCoding attribute if present, > else the {http transfer coding default} property of the parent > Binding Operation, if present > else the {http transfer coding default} property of the > grandparent Binding, if present > else the property if absent > > 3.2 For Binding Fault Reference, the value is equal to the > whttp:transferCoding attribute if present, > else the {http transfer coding default} property of the associated > Binding Fault component if present > else the {http transfer coding default} property of the parent > Binding Operation, if present > else the {http transfer coding default} property of the > grandparent Binding, if present > else the property if absent > > 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 > > > *"John Kaputin (gmail)" <jakaputin@gmail.com>* > Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org > > 05/26/2006 08:12 AM > To > www-ws-desc@w3.org > cc > woden-dev@ws.apache.org, "John Kaputin" <KAPUTIN@uk.ibm.com> > Subject > Clarification needed on HTTP Transfer Coding > > > > > > > Can someone please clarify some points about the http transer coding > extension properties defined in Part 2 section 6.8.2 Relationship to WSDL > Component Model [1]? > > It says the Binding has a {http transfer coding default} property that is > available to InterfaceMessageReference and InterfaceFaultReference > components. Is this worded correctly? Do components from the abstract > interface need http binding information? > > It also says BindingOperation has a {http transfer coding default} > property that is available to BindingMessageReference and BindingFault > components. Is 'BindingFault' a mistake, should this say > BindingFaultReference? > > There are no semantic rules about the relationship between the two {http > transfer coding default} properties (i.e. in Binding and > BindingOperation), so they could potentially be different. I don't think > this would make sense, but it seems to be possible according to the way this > section is described. > > Finally, there are no semantic rules about the relationship between > BindingOperation's {http transfer coding default} property and the {http > transfer coding} properties if its two child components. As an implementor I > can infer what that relationship might be, but it would be better if the > spec stated in explicitly as it does for default and actual extension > properties elsewhere. > > [1] *http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20-adjuncts.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#http-transfer-coding-relate > *<http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20-adjuncts.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#http-transfer-coding-relate> > > regards, > John Kaputin. >
Received on Tuesday, 30 May 2006 09:48:11 UTC