[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [uddi-spec] Comments on the "Using WSDL in a UDDI Registry, v2" TN
Luc,
Thanks for you comments. My responses are as follows:
a. I was keen to avoid restricting the applicability of the TN and to allow it to be applied to any WSDL. Looking at the footnote now, I would prefer to weaken it if anything (I did not write that footnote).
b. The V3 spec. covers this but I agree that A.2 could describe both V2 and V3 behaviour, given what is said in 2.3.5.
c. Again, the assumption was that the V2 API constructs would be mapped to V3 per the V3 spec. We definitely decided not to require a V3 bindingTemplate to be categorized as that is not visible to a V2 client, and we did not want to duplicate information for a V3 client. Section 2.5.2 is clear that the categoryBag on the bindingTemplate is optional. As the tModel is not a categorization tModel then nobody should be tempted to try and use it as one.
John Colgrave IBM
-----Original Message-----
John,
I was reviewing the "Using WSDL in a UDDI Registry, v2" TN and noticed a few issues that I'd like to bring up to your attention and get comments from you.
a. Section 2.4.1 - Mandatory requirement to have a keyedReference to the "XML Namespace category system"
b. Section A.2 - Reference v2 behaviour but does not specify a v3 behaviour.
c. Section B.9.1 - only references v2 but states nothing for v3
Thoughts?
Luc |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]