Is it always straightforward to determine at WSDL parse time which interface a binding applies to? Esp. if the binding is generic? Jonathan Marsh - <http://www.wso2.com> http://www.wso2.com - <http://auburnmarshes.spaces.live.com> http://auburnmarshes.spaces.live.com _____ From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Arthur Ryman Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 11:36 AM To: Amelia A Lewis Cc: Ramkumar Menon; www-ws-desc@w3.org; www-ws-desc-request@w3.org Subject: Re: Assertion on Bindings for Interface that only define faults Amy/Ram, I agree that it does not make sense to bind an interface that has no operations. Perhaps we could add a SHOULD assertion. This would map to a Warning in a validator. 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 Amelia A Lewis <alewis@tibco.com> Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org 02/07/2007 11:17 AM To Ramkumar Menon <ramkumar.menon@gmail.com>, www-ws-desc@w3.org cc Subject Re: Assertion on Bindings for Interface that only define faults Heyo, --On February 6, 2007 8:13:36 PM -0800 Ramkumar Menon <ramkumar.menon@gmail.com> wrote: > I assume that it does not make sense, and is an error to define a Binding > component for an Interface Component that defines only Faults. Does this > call for a new assertion ? I can see a use case, for a "mix-in" interface. Perhaps that's stretching a point. In any event, while it may seem pointless, I don't see that it is an error. Amy! -- Amelia A. Lewis Senior Architect TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc. alewis@tibco.com
Received on Wednesday, 7 February 2007 20:01:20 UTC