geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Jencks <david_jen...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: "port" element revisions
Date Sun, 18 Sep 2005 18:09:31 GMT
The extra binding-name element is required and has to
go with the other parts of the port element.  Moving
it outside the port element has the effect of
requiring pairs of elements to follow each other,
which I don't like as a schema.  On the other hand the
extension seems a bit fishy even if renamed. How about
introducing port-completion that includes port and
binding-name?


    <xsd:complexType name="service-completionType">
        <xsd:sequence>
            <xsd:element name="service-name"
type="xsd:string"/>
            <xsd:element name="port-completion"
type="gernaming:port-completionType"
maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
        </xsd:sequence>
    </xsd:complexType>

    <xsd:complexType name="port-completionType">
        <xsd:complexContent>
                <xsd:sequence>
                    <xsd:element name="port"
type="gernaming:portType">
                    <xsd:element name="binding-name"
type="xsd:string"/>
                </xsd:sequence>
        </xsd:complexContent>
    </xsd:complexType>

thanks
david jencks



--- Aaron Mulder <ammulder@alumni.princeton.edu>
wrote:

> For a web services reference, we have 2 "port"
> elements that contain
> not quite the same thing (one has one extra
> element), and one "port"
> element that's totally different.  Well, changing
> the third (a network
> port) is not something I'm really up for at the
> moment.  But there are
> two options for straightening out the two very
> similar port types. 
> One is to make the two "port" elements identical, by
> simply moving the
> extra element out of the one "port" that has it. 
> The other option is
> to change one of the "port" elements so that it's
> called something
> different altogether.  I've given an example below. 
> So far David J
> and I are split on this, so ony other opinions would
> be helpful.
> 
> Thanks,
>   Aaron
> 
> 
> CURRENT STATE
> 
> <service-completion>
>   <port>
>     <port-name>...
>     <protocol>...
>     <host>...
>     <port>...
>     <uri>...
>     <credentials-name>...
>     <binding-name>...   (the extra element)
>   </port>
> </service-completion>
> 
> (elsewhere)
> 
> <port>
>   <port-name>...
>   <protocol>...
>   <host>...
>   <port>...
>   <uri>...
>   <credentials-name>...
> </port>
> 
> NEW OPTION 1
> 
> <service-completion>
>   <port>
>     <port-name>...
>     <protocol>...
>     <host>...
>     <port>...
>     <uri>...
>     <credentials-name>...
>   </port>
>   <binding-name>...   (the extra element, now moved)
> </service-completion>
> 
> (elsewhere)
> 
> <port>... (same as above) ...</port>
> 
> NEW OPTION 2
> 
> <service-completion>
>   <port-completion>   (the "port" element now
> renamed)
>     <port-name>...
>     <protocol>...
>     <host>...
>     <port>...
>     <uri>...
>     <credentials-name>...
>     <binding-name>...
>   </port-completion>
> </service-completion>
> 
> (elsewhere)
> 
> <port>
>   <port-name>...
>   <protocol>...
>   <host>...
>   <port>...
>   <uri>...
>   <credentials-name>...
> </port>
> 


Mime
View raw message