Hello,
Port type qname + operation name + input name (if any) + output name (if any) identify the abstract operation being referred to. Mapping this abstract operation to a binding operation is a separate matter.
Any valid binding for the port type must have bindings for all the supported operations.
This is my understanding, for whatever that is worth!
Thanks,
Nirmal.
| "Jeff Greif" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
02/21/2003 01:04 PM
|
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cc: Subject: Re: Using XML to represent web service invocation. |
I'm a little confused by this. I was under the impression that for a given
portType + operation combination (ignoring the possibility of overloading,
for the moment) that there could be several possible bindings. If this is
true, in order to uniquely specify an operation you might need to use the
binding/port and the portType/operation names (and also deal with the
overloading using input and/or output message names). The question is,
should it be the portType and operation or port and operation that uniquely
specifies the service?
I have found ambiguities in the WSDL 1.1 spec and 1.2 drafts (when I last
looked a couple of months ago) that make it difficult to figure this out for
myself, although clearly the 1.2 drafts are trying to clean up these issues.
Jeff
----- Original Message -----
From: Nirmal Mukhi
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 9:17 AM
Subject: Re: Using XML to represent web service invocation.
Hello Paul,
You do need the port type in addition to the operation name to resolve the
operation, since operation names can certainly be duplicated in different
port types. WSDL also allows operation overloading within a port type, so
you
...
