- From: Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
- Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 21:36:20 -0400
- To: "Ramkumar Menon" <ramkumar.menon@gmail.com>
- Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org, www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
- Message-ID: <OF27B17CE2.9F421BF2-ON8525717F.000825F7-8525717F.0008D735@ca.ibm.com>
Ram, Point (3) is: 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 ? The spec requires that the binding of an endpoint must either be interface-less, or ref to the same interface as the enclosing service. As I recall, the alternative got too complex. The following diagram might help: 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 05/29/2006 11:41 PM To Arthur Ryman/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA 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
Attachments
- image/gif attachment: 01-part
Received on Wednesday, 31 May 2006 01:36:53 UTC