I'm not sure about the PortType extensions.
Personally I agree with you, but this is the syntax that every other spec. I've
looked at seems to employ (WS-C/WS-BA/WS-AT/WS-BPEL). I'd rather stick with what
readers expect from the plethora of other specs.
Mark.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 4:03
PM
Subject: Re: [ws-caf-editors] issues 1-7
in draft doc
Just an FYI... this will mean a change to all the
wsdls. Every PortType and Binding that contains Respondent will now be
changed to contain ResponseHandler. So for example
wscf:ParticipantRespondantPortType will now be
wscf:ParticipantResponseHandlerPortType. I think this change is pretty
trivial and I'm ready to make it immediately. However I would also like
to propose another typographical change: can we drop the "PortType" endings
from all the port types? There shouldn't really be a need for them since
they are already distinguished as port types by the wsdl:portType declaration
and getting rid of them will allow names to be smaller. For the
corresponding bindings we should also remove the "PortType" (ex.
ParticipantRespondantPortTypeSOAPBinding can become
ParticipantRespondantSOAPBinding, and not
ParticipantResponseHandlertPortTypeSOAPBinding). We can leave the
SOAPBinding portion on as it distinguishes it from other possible bindings
that may be used in the future. These are just cosmetic changes but
implementers sure do appreciate generated class names that can fit on a single
line ;-)
On Fri, 2004-03-26 at 05:40, Mark Little wrote:
I'm happy with ResponseHandler and I don't think we need to put this up for
a re-vote: it's an editorial decision IMO.
Mark.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Greg Pavlik" <greg.pavlik@oracle.com>
To: "ws-caf-editors" <ws-caf-editors@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 2:21 AM
Subject: [ws-caf-editors] issues 1-7 in draft doc
> Gentlemen, resolving issues 1-6 in the WS-Context specification was
> scandalously easy: there were no changes to the text. However, issue 7
> is bothering me. The correct spelling is indeed Respondent. However,
> these porttypes are for receiving responses. Respondent is defined, in
> the American Heritage dictionary as "one who responds". I mentioned this
> to Martin, but not Mark (duh!) before the TC kicked off, and then
> completely forgot about it. So I suggest that we come up with a more
> appropriate term, like ResponseHandler. Any objections?
>
> On a related topic: following Monday, I propose we integrate the model
> directly into the text, start to make sure we have the outline for the
> structure of the text that we deem appropriate, and plan what sequence
> diagrams are required to describe interactions. Since we're aiming for a
> draft to be ready before the next TC, we've got some busy weeks ahead.
>
> Greg
>
>
Simeon M. Greene Senior Member of Technical Staff
224 Strawbridge Drive Suite 300 Moorestown NJ 08057 USA p. (856)914-4757 f. (856)914-4742 |
|