RE: Assertion on Bindings for Interface that only define faults

Thank you for the comment.  The Working Group this issue as a CR152 [1].

 

While we don't see much utility in defining a Binding Component for an
Interface that defines only faults, writing such an assertion is a bit
complicated to develop, since it has to handle interfaceless Bindings as
well.  Because we're trying to finish the spec shortly, adding such an
assertion was judged as low value at this point.  The WG thus decided to
close with no action.

 

Unless you let us know otherwise within 2 weeks, we will assume you agree
with the resolution of this issue.

 

[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/cr-issues/issues.html#CR152 

 

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 Ramkumar Menon
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 8:14 PM
To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Subject: Assertion on Bindings for Interface that only define faults

 

Hi Gurus,

  

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 ?

 

rgds,

Ram

   

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

-Ramkumar Menon
A typical Macroprocessor