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

On 7/24/06, Prasad Yendluri <> wrote:

  
  

>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. 
†"

This talks about unique names withing the same interface, the case I'm talking about is having two operations with the same name in two different (and unrelated) interfaces.

 

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."

In case of two different operations with the same QName coming from two different interfaces, although they have the exact same QName, they are not equivalent since they differ by at least one property: their parents.

 

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.

Only if they belong to the same interface, directly or indirectly (through inheritence).

Assaf
 

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

-- 
CTO, Intalio
http://www.intalio.com