Re: problem with pattern attribute definition?
Amelia A Lewis <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.web.services.description |
|---|---|
| Organization | TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc. |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Arthur, On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 11:24:47 -0500 Arthur Ryman <[email protected]> wrote: >I agree this is a problem. If an AII is REQUIRED, it MUST be present >in the XML document. Therefore, the following statement is >inconsistent: > >The actual value of the pattern attribute information item; otherwise >'http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/wsdl/in-out'. Good; that's what I thought as well. That's how we do other properties, such as messageLabel, that have default values. >I recall at one point in time we discussed having a default value. >However, these spec doesn't seem to indicate that we went that way. It may have gotten dropped in editing, then. I remember the argument well, if only because I was on the losing side, having fought the good fight. The result of it was that in-out is considered to be so common an idiom that it ought *not* require the pattern attribute. That is, we ended up setting the in-out pattern as the default value of the pattern attribute, as the above statement indicates. >To resolve this, either >1) remove the otherwise clause I believe that this would reverse the resolution of the issue that was raised. >2) or, define the default and make the attribute OPTIONAL I believe that this was the previous resolution. I think that the failure to mark the attribute OPTIONAL is simply an oversight, when the previous resolution was implemented. If someone can identify the issue, I believe that the record of the issue and its resolution will support this, and I say this as the primary *opponent* of the resolution adopted. >The component model propery is REQUIRED in either case. Yes; no change is needed there. Amy! -- Amelia A. Lewis Senior Architect TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc. [email protected]