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

RE: importing docs in the same namespace

From: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 11:38:25 -0700
Message-ID: <92456F6B84D1324C943905BEEAE0278E02D30864@RED-MSG-10.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>, "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, "WS-Desc WG (Public)" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

One clarification: 

You can use XInclude, but you can't expect a WSDL processor to
understand XInclude ( at least I think that's how it panned out ). So
provided you have some sort of XInclude preprocessor you're fine.

Gudge

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Gudgin [mailto:mgudgin@microsoft.com] 
> Sent: 04 October 2002 19:29
> To: David Orchard; Sanjiva Weerawarana; WS-Desc WG (Public)
> Subject: RE: importing docs in the same namespace
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David Orchard [mailto:dorchard@bea.com]
> > Sent: 04 October 2002 19:06
> > To: Martin Gudgin; 'Sanjiva Weerawarana'; 'WS-Desc WG (Public)'
> > Subject: RE: importing docs in the same namespace
> > 
> > 
> > BEA really likes the idea of splitting the interface and impl
> > parts more strongly.  Ideally, they would even be separate 
> > schemas so that one could validate them strictly.  
> 
> So, message and portTypes in one place, bindings and services 
> in another?
> 
> > As in, a
> > workflow language that describes the relationships between 
> > abstract things shouldn't be allowed to have implementation info.  
> > 
> > BTW, one of the hopes of XInclude was to obviate the need for
> > so darned many *:include syntaxes with their own specialized 
> > parsing rules.  What was the rationale for not using Xinclude 
> > for this functionality?  Given Jonathon's leadership on 
> > XInclude, I'm sure there are very valid reasons.  I'm just 
> > curious what they are.  
> 
> Oh, you CAN use XInclude. WDSL is Infoset based so if you 
> build a WSDL infoset using XInclude you're fine ( arguably we 
> can't tell whether you did that or not... )
> 
> Gudge
> 
> > 
> > sigh.  The endless debate on how to do linking and references
> > in XML continues....
> 
> Remember, if you see a light at the end of the tunnerl, 
> you're about to get crushed by an oncoming train!
> 
> Gudge
> 
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > Dave
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
> > [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]On
> > > Behalf Of Martin
> > Gudgin
> > > Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 10:14 AM
> > > To: Sanjiva Weerawarana; WS-Desc WG (Public)
> > > Subject: RE: importing docs in the same namespace
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Sanjiva Weerawarana [mailto:sanjiva@watson.ibm.com]
> > > > Sent: 04 October 2002 17:50
> > > > To: Martin Gudgin; WS-Desc WG (Public)
> > > > Subject: Re: importing docs in the same namespace
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > If we don't allow this the recommended usage style of 
> WSDL 1.1 no 
> > > > longer works. That basically said split the interface 
> part of the 
> > > > service to one file and the impl part to another and import the 
> > > > interface part there - which still seems like the natural and 
> > > > correct split.
> > > 
> > > You could use XInclude to do that, I think we talked about that 
> > > approach in Paris. Or we could define a wsdl:include with the same
> > semantics as
> > > xsd:include ( sans chameleon include, probably ) ( I know 
> we already 
> > > decided not to define wsdl:include).
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > So, I believe this should be another case of how
> > > > we diverge from XSD import semantics.
> > > 
> > > Apart from requiring schemaLocation what are the other
> > cases where we
> > > diverge?
> > > 
> > > Gudge
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 4 October 2002 14:38:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:21 GMT