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:

>

>http://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl20/#InterfaceOperation_details

>

>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. †"

and  

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.

Prasad