W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > June 2002

RE: Inteaction between message and binding ( was RE: Issue 4: Use of namespace attribute on soap:body )

From: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 07:36:03 -0700
Message-ID: <92456F6B84D1324C943905BEEAE0278E0145D0DA@RED-MSG-10.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

By 'this WD' I take it you mean the draft we are about to publish? I
wasn't aware that any of the issues currently under discussion were
going to be addressed in that draft. I presumed, perhaps erroneously,
that we would just publish the draft as a snapshot of where our
collective head is at.

Gudge

-----Original Message-----
From: Sanjiva Weerawarana [mailto:sanjiva@watson.ibm.com] 
Sent: 26 June 2002 15:30
To: Martin Gudgin; www-ws-desc@w3.org
Subject: Re: Inteaction between message and binding ( was RE: Issue 4:
Use of namespace attribute on soap:body )


I think all these complications come from having both <part type=> and
<part element=>. After we get this WD done I would like to have a
detailed discussion on this topic .. I would personally like to retain
type and remove element, but I realize there are others in WG who feel
exactly the opposite. So we need to consider the merits of each and then
figure out whether we can pick one and live with it. This is also an
issue in the current draft (which I introduced a long time ago).

I'm certain this will be a long, drawn-out discussion. So my personal
preference would be to wait until we are done with this draft to open
that discussion.

I'm sure you're aware of the WS-I discussion on this same topic too.

Bye,

Sanjiva.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 7:28 PM
Subject: Inteaction between message and binding ( was RE: Issue 4: Use
of namespace attribute on soap:body )


>
> Talking to myself...
>
> I wrote up the namespace AII issue from the perspective of the 
> binding. After sending it I did some more thinking and realised that 
> from the perspective of the message construct things are a bit more 
> complicated WRT literal/encoded. Note that the observations below do 
> not bear directly on issue 4, they are just my musings which I present

> for discussion.
>
> Here's the deal;
>
> In the message section[1] our spec states;
>
> 'Multiple part elements are used if the message has multiple logical 
> units'.
>
> This implies that if the message has multiple parts you can put 
> multiple wsdl:part EIIs with element AIIs inside the message 
> definition. The spec also states;
>
> 'However, if the message contents are sufficiently complex, then an 
> alternative syntax may be used to specify the composite structure of 
> the message using the type system directly. In this usage, only one 
> part may be specified.'
>
> This implies that if you use a wsdl:part EII with a type AII you can 
> only have one wsdl:part inside the message definition. So <wsdl:part 
> type='' /> allows only one part, <wsdl:part element='' /> allows one 
> or more parts.
>
> In the soap:body section[2] our spec states;
>
> 'If use is encoded , then each message part references an abstract 
> type using the type attribute'
>
> This implies multiple wsdl:part EIIs with type AIIs in the message 
> definition, in direct contradiction to[1]. It also implies that if you

> are using use='encoded' then you MUST use type and not element. The 
> spec also states;
>
> 'If use is literal , then each part references a concrete schema 
> definition using either the element or type attribute'
>
> Again this implies multiple wsdl:part EIIs with type AIIs in the 
> message definition.
>
> So it's a bit of a mess. Another implication is that it is VERY 
> difficult, if not impossible to actually write an 'astract' message 
> because you need to know whether you are using literal or encoded in 
> order to construct the message parts correctly.
>
> Comments, thoughts, flames etc to the usual address.
>
> Gudge
>
>
> [1] 
> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/part1/part1.html#IDAW
> SK
> O
> [2]
>
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/part2/wsdl12-part2.html
> #_soap_body
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Gudgin [mailto:mgudgin@microsoft.com]
> Sent: 25 June 2002 13:42
> To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: Issue 4: Use of namespace attribute on soap:body
>
>
>
> I took an AI at the last telcon to write up Issue 4. Here is that 
> write up.
>
> The issue is about interaction between the namespace attribute on 
> soap:body and the targetNamespace of global element declarations in a 
> schema.
>
> The namespace attribute on the soap:body binding extension element is 
> only applicable when use='encoded' where it defines the namespace 
> qualification of the 'wrapper' element for the RPC parameters. The 
> local name of the wrapper element is defined by the name property of 
> the input / output pieces of a portType operation. When use='encoded' 
> the parts attribute of soap:body refers to parts defined using type=''

> rather than element=''. Therefore the interaction does not exist.
>
> Spo I'm not sure there is much of an issue here. We might want to 
> clarify that if use='literal' then the namespace attribute on 
> soap:body is not applicable.
>
> Gudge
Received on Wednesday, 26 June 2002 10:36:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:20 GMT