OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

wsbpel message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Re: Issue 304 - discussion - clarification on whetherthe QName of a fault needs to be unique across all portTypes and operations

>Assaf Arkin wrote:
>On the other hand, WSDL 2.0 does exactly that. Each operation has a name property of type QName, and the spec clearly indicates two operations may >share the same QName:
>So it's a matter of which precedent you prefer to judge by. I don't see a problem with the fault QName, I think it keeps the catch as simple as it possibly can be.

The WSDL 2.0 spec says,

a) "For each Interface Operation component in the {interface operations} property of an Interface component, the {name} property MUST be unique. †"


b) "In cases where, due to an interface extending one or more other interfaces, two or more Interface Operation components have the same value for their {name} property, then the component models of those Interface Operation components MUST be equivalent "

c) Where "Two component instances of the same type are considered equivalent if, for each property of the first component, there is a corresponding property with an equivalent value on the second component, and vice versa."

So, WSDL 2.0 first is defining the operation name to be a QName  ( {name} REQUIRED. An xs:QName.) and says when the same QName is used on two different operations, they MUST be equivalent.

This is very different from WSDL 1.1 fault name where the fault name is first not defined to be a QName and it is defined to be unique only within the context of a specific operation and  in a specific portType.

This is comparing apples and oranges. One does not follow from the other.


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]