+1 option one
-dain
On Sep 18, 2005, at 7:42 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
I think option one provides better consistency from a user
perspective. I vote for Option One.
Matt
Aaron Mulder 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>
