RE: [wsrp] Issue #38: Differing signature styles

["Andre Kramer" <andre.kramer@eu.citrix.com>]

As mentioned in the TC today, call the main alternatives are:

 

1)       switch all usage to listing the parameter names rather than the type: e.g. go from a op1(TypeA, TypeB) style to op1(param1, param2)

2)       use both the type name and the parameter name when an operation takes multiple args of the same type e.g. op1(TypeA param1, TypeB param2, Type A param2)

 

Personally, I think (1), while possible because of Rich’s disciplined use of naming params after their type but with a lowercase first letter, is of much larger impact than (2) if (2) is used only when we have multiple params of the same type.

 

We could investigate alternatives, such as inventing new (sub)types (modeling to/from directionality in typing) but I would prefer to keep the current scheme and pointing out to readers that it is a notational aid, the XML Schema / WSDL being normative.

 

What do people think? Or are we happy with just switching to names if type clash as draft 5 does alternative (0)?

 

Regards,

Andre

 

---

From: Rich Thompson [mailto:richt2@us.ibm.com]
Sent: 22 February 2005 18:44
To: wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [wsrp] Issue #38: Differing signature styles

 

Issue # 38
Spec section:
SubCommittee: Interfaces
Owner: Andre
Description: copyPortlets uses a different style in its signature (see p20, section 4.4 in the spec). All the other operations use the type being passed while the copyPortlets signature uses the parameter names, presumably to help distinguish between the pairs of RegistrationContexts and UserContexts.