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: Prasad Yendluri <pyendluri@webmethods.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 14:25:05 -0700
Message-ID: <3D1A3131.E3EDDA7D@webmethods.com>
To: www-ws-desc@w3.org

+1 to Sanjiva's suggestion on moving forward with a detailed discussion on
type vs element. I don't think we need both as well (though personally I think
only type can work :)

Regards, Prasad

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Inteaction between message and binding ( was RE: Issue 4: Use of
namespace attribute on soap:body )
Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 10:31:30 -0400 (EDT)
Resent-From: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 20:30:20 +0600
From: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
To: "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
References:
<92456F6B84D1324C943905BEEAE0278E0145D0D5@RED-MSG-10.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>



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#IDAWSK
> 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 17:21:29 GMT

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