Simon, Still looking over your changes.... just wanted to respond that my impression & working understanding has been that we assume we have unique operation names in a bunch of places and use String.equals() for operation name matching... certainly within some binding implementations... so making this assumption in another place wouldn't be a big deal. That is, unless this code needs to be used with local interfaces, in which case we do have the potential for operator overloading, however do we really need all this interface modeling for local interfaces? Not sure.....
.... Also I noticed you introduced <complexType name="WireFormatJMSDefaultType"/> <element name="wireFormat.jmsDefault" type="t:WireFormatJMSDefaultType"/> I did notice OASIS is talking about "wireFormat.jmsdefault" (lowercase 'd'), so since we're implementing OASIS here that seems to be a better choice even though it's still in the Tuscany NS. Scott.
