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: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 12:40:16 -0700
Message-ID: <330564469BFEC046B84E591EB3D4D59C06A08215@red-msg-08.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

That was my understanding too.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Gudgin [mailto:mgudgin@microsoft.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 7:36 AM
> To: Sanjiva Weerawarana; www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Inteaction between message and binding ( was RE: Issue 4:
Use
> of namespace attribute on soap:body )
> 
> 
> 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 15:40:48 GMT

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