Re: Assertion on Bindings for Interface that only define faults
Arthur Ryman <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.web.services.description |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <OF34867A33.69A64ECC-ON8525727B.0069E01E-8525727B.006B0CDB@ca.ibm.com> |
Amy/Ram, I agree that it does not make sense to bind an interface that has no operations. Perhaps we could add a SHOULD assertion. This would map to a Warning in a validator. Arthur Ryman, IBM Software Group, Rational Division blog: http://ryman.eclipsedevelopersjournal.com/ phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077 assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411 fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920 mobile: +1-416-939-5063, text: [email protected] Amelia A Lewis <[email protected]> Sent by: [email protected] 02/07/2007 11:17 AM To Ramkumar Menon <[email protected]>, [email protected] cc Subject Re: Assertion on Bindings for Interface that only define faults Heyo, --On February 6, 2007 8:13:36 PM -0800 Ramkumar Menon <[email protected]> wrote: > I assume that it does not make sense, and is an error to define a Binding > component for an Interface Component that defines only Faults. Does this > call for a new assertion ? I can see a use case, for a "mix-in" interface. Perhaps that's stretching a point. In any event, while it may seem pointless, I don't see that it is an error. Amy! -- Amelia A. Lewis Senior Architect TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc. [email protected]