W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-chor@w3.org > September 2004

FW: Proposal on WSDL 1.1 vs WSDL 2.0 MEPs

From: Martin Chapman <martin.chapman@oracle.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 17:58:46 +0100
To: <public-ws-chor@w3.org>
Message-ID: <006a01c49a7c$19b41130$2cae2382@ie.oracle.com>



-----Original Message-----
From: member-ws-chor-request@w3.org
[mailto:member-ws-chor-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Charlton Barreto
Sent: 14 September 2004 17:03
To: Gary Brown
Cc: WS-Choreography Working Group
Subject: Re: Proposal on WSDL 1.1 vs WSDL 2.0 MEPs



Hi Gary,

On 14/09/2004, at 04:35, Gary Brown wrote:

> Not sure if it is necessary for the CDL schema to explicitly specify a
> WSDL
> version, as the binding to a particular WSDL service definition would 
> just
> need to be validated by the parser, to ensure that the interactions in

> the
> CDL specification are implemented by the associated WSDL operations.

This is certainly a valid point. Instead of including an element in 
CDL, a CDL parser can check the wsdl version in the wsdl itself and 
validate based on that., or be configured for wsdl 1.1 vs. wsdl 2.0 at 
runtime, etc. My concern behind the proposal was that we ensure that a 
CDL parser has a way to determine when to apply certain restrictions 
due to using wsdl 1.1 vs. wsdl 2.0 (e.g. none of 2.0's *-optional-* 
MEPs are valid in 1.1).

> For example, if the CDL has an interaction with a request and response

> exchange elements, then the parser would just need to ensure that the 
> bound WSDL operation was either a WSDL 1.1 request-response, or a 
> WSDL2 in-out or
> in-optional-out. Similarly a CDL interaction with just a request could

> be
> mapped to WSDL1.1 one-way, or a WSDL 2 in-only or in-optional-out.

Understood - I agree that we can do this outside of CDL itself. I think 
it would be good to have something - at least in an Appendix - 
providing some suggestions or guidance on this, make it more 
straightforward when writing a parser.

Cheers,

-Charlton.
Received on Tuesday, 14 September 2004 16:59:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 18 December 2010 01:01:05 GMT