W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-policy@w3.org > April 2008

Re: [Bug 5346] Operation parameter in bindingOperation is of type QName

From: Tammo van Lessen <tammo.van.lessen@iaas.uni-stuttgart.de>
Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 21:55:15 +0200
Message-ID: <47FD1F23.5070307@iaas.uni-stuttgart.de>
To: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
CC: Asir Vedamuthu <asirveda@microsoft.com>, "public-ws-policy@w3.org" <public-ws-policy@w3.org>

Hi Paul,

yes, I'm fine, although I don't think it is the soundest
solution but rather the least-effort approach. Of course a WSDL 1.1
document has a target namespace and a QName isn't harmful at all, but
the QName contains an information (i.e. the namespace) that is in a
sense redundant.

> The WG used the "align WSDL 11 EIs with WSDL 20 component
> designators" principle and used simple forms in the example to
> illustrate the concept.

Does this mean that the identifiers should be ideally following the 
scheme for both WSDL 1.1 and 2.0? Then your approach is of course the 
best (and you should ignore what I've written above). If that means to 
translate the concept of the element identifiers introduced in WSDL 2.0 
to WSDL 1.1, then I would prefer to remove the redundancy.

Thanks,
   Tammo


Paul Cotton wrote:
> Are you satisfied with this reply to issue 5346?  If so then I think 
> the Ws-Policy WG can close this issue.
> 
> /paulc
> 
> Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada 17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 
> 6A3 Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329
> 
> 
> -----Original Message----- From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Asir Vedamuthu
>  Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2008 5:15 PM To: Tammo van Lessen; 
> public-ws-policy@w3.org Subject: RE: [Bug 5346] Operation parameter 
> in bindingOperation is of type QName
> 
> 
> Hello Tammo,
> 
>> "AFAIK, WSDL 1.1 and WSDL 2.0 are somehow different in this case. 
>> WSDL 2.0 supports interface inheritance, thus inherited operations 
>> still have another namespace (i.e. different to targetNamespace). I
>>  believe that's why they are using QNames to identify an
>> operation."
>> 
> 
> Your observations are correct: a) WSDL 20: requires QNames to 
> distinguish Binding Operations and b) WSDL 11: an NCName is 
> sufficient to distinguish Binding Operations.
> 
> As you know, a WSDL 11 document has a targetNamespace. There aren't 
> any harmful effects in using QNames for identifying binding 
> operations in WSDL 11 documents. The WG used the "align WSDL 11 EIs 
> with WSDL 20 component designators" principle and used simple forms 
> in the example to illustrate the concept.
> 
> I hope this helps to close issue 5346.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Asir S Vedamuthu Microsoft Corporation
> 
> 
> -----Original Message----- From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Tammo van 
> Lessen Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 5:39 AM To: 
> public-ws-policy@w3.org Subject: [Fwd: Re: [Bug 5346] Operation 
> parameter in bindingOperation is of type QName]
> 
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> I'm reposting this because the original mail did not make it into the
>  public mailinglist archive - so I was not sure whether you've got my
>  mail or not. My apologies if you receive this twice.
> 
> Best regards, Tammo
> 
> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Bug 5346] Operation 
> parameter in bindingOperation is of type QName Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008
>  14:26:19 +0100 From: Tammo van Lessen <tvanlessen@taval.de> To: Paul
>  Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com> CC: public-ws-policy@w3.org 
> <public-ws-policy@w3.org>,  Christopher B Ferris 
> (chrisfer@us.ibm.com) <chrisfer@us.ibm.com> References: 
> <4D66CCFC0B64BA4BBD79D55F6EBC22574A99DAC7B7@NA-EXMSG-C103.redmond.corp.microsoft>
> 
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Paul Cotton wrote:
>> Note that the comment actually refers to [1] which is an Editor's 
>> CVS version of the spec.  But I believe the comment applies to the
>>  published WG Note at [2].
> 
> Yes, it also applies to [2].
> 
>>> I'm wondering whether the second parameter ('operation') in 
>>> operation binding references should be really a QName. Shouldn't 
>>> it be a NCName? The examples are also referring to NCName, like 
>>> http://...#wsdl11.bindingOperation(TicketAgentSoap/listFlights)
>> Here is my initial reaction:
> ....
>> In particular the WSDL 2.0 table [4] defines the operation 
>> parameter for the binding references (e.g Binding Fault, Binding 
>> Operation, Binding Message Reference, and Binding Fault Reference) 
>> as QName. Since our table is based on the WSDL 2.0 table, I believe
>>  that we defined the second parameter's type as QNAME to match what
>>  was done in the WSDL 2.0 table [4].
> 
> AFAIK, WSDL 1.1 and WSDL 2.0 are somehow different in this case. WSDL
>  2.0 supports interface inheritance, thus inherited operations still 
> have another namespace (i.e. different to targetNamespace). I believe
>  that's why they are using QNames to identify an operation.
> 
> This is not the case in WSDL 1.1. The binding is specified for a 
> particular portType (without supporting inheritance), thus nested 
> bindings to operations can obviously only correspond to those defined
>  in this portType. Therefore I think that the tuple (binding, 
> operation) is sufficient to identify the operation uniquely.
> 
> But of course I might have got it wrong...
> 
> Best regards, Tammo
> 
> -- Tammo van Lessen Institute of Architecture of Application Systems 
> |Tel. (+49)711 7816 487 University of Stuttgart |Fax. (+49)711 7816
> 472 Universitaetsstr. 38, 70569 Stuttgart |Room 1.132
> 
> 


-- 
Tammo van Lessen
Institute of Architecture of Application Systems |Tel. (+49)711 7816 487
University of Stuttgart                          |Fax. (+49)711 7816 472
Universitaetsstr. 38, 70569 Stuttgart            |Room 1.132
Received on Wednesday, 9 April 2008 20:07:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 April 2008 20:07:11 GMT