Re: Proposed renamings

Philippe, others,

I like renaming portType to interface and port into endpoint (notice
lower-case 'p' as I think it's now one word, I guess I could live with
endPoint, too, but I think it would be confusing).

I don't like the binding renaming to interfaceBinding, I'd keep
'binding' because it's shorter and I think it's clear from the context
that it is an interface binding (especially if, as I expect, the
attribute 'type' is renamed to 'interface'). Otherwise we could have
endpoint -> interfaceEndpoint or even interfaceBindingEndpoint and so
on.

Best regards,

                   Jacek Kopecky

                   Senior Architect, Systinet Corporation
                   http://www.systinet.com/





On Wed, 2003-02-26 at 21:20, Philippe Le Hegaret wrote:
> [I thought I sent these yesterday but don't see it in the archives, so
> sending it again]
> 
> I've got an action item to start a proposal on renaming elements and/or
> attributes in WSDL 1.2. This proposal is based on the latest WSDL 1.2
> drafts and the requirements document. I'll keep track of sub-sequa=ente
> proposals
> 
> - portType
>  The requirements document has the following:
>  [[
>  Interface (AKA Port Type)
>   [Definition: A logical grouping of operations. An Interface represents
>   an abstract Web Service type, independent of transmission protocol and
>   data format.]
>  ]]
>  http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-ws-desc-reqs-20021028/#normDefs
> 
> In 2.4.2 XML Representation of Port Type Component:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-wsdl12-20030124/#PortType_XMLRep
> 
>  A [local name] of portType
> 
>  would read
> 
>  A [local name] of interface
> 
> -  EndPoint (AKA Port)
>  The requirements document has the following:
>  [[
>  EndPoint (AKA Port)
>   [Definition: An association between a fully-specified InterfaceBinding
>   and a network address, specified by a URI [IETF RFC 2396], that may be
>   used to communicate with an instance of a Web Service. An EndPoint
>   indicates a specific location for accessing a Web Service using a
>   specific protocol and data format.]
>  ]]
>  http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-wsdl12-20030124/#Port_XMLRep
> 
> In 2.11.2 XML Representation of Port Component
> 
>  A [local name] of port
>  
>  would read
> 
>  A [local name] of endPoint
> 
> 
> We may also do the following but, if we don't, I'll recommend changing
> the glossary of our requirements document.
> 
> - binding
>  The requirements document has the following:
>  [[
>  InterfaceBinding
>   [Definition: An association between an Interface, a concrete protocol
>   and/or a data format. An InterfaceBinding specifies the protocol
>   and/or data format to be used in transmitting Messages defined by the
>   associated Interface.]
>  ]]
>  http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-ws-desc-reqs-20021028/#normDefs
> 
> In 2.7.2 XML Representation of Binding Component
> In http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-wsdl12-20030124/#Binding_XMLRep
> 
>  A [local name] of binding
>  
>  would read
> 
>  A [local name] of interfaceBinding
>  
>

Received on Thursday, 27 February 2003 11:22:21 UTC