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

Re: importing docs in the same namespace

From: Amelia A Lewis <alewis@tibco.com>
Date: 07 Oct 2002 11:46:35 -0400
To: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Cc: "WS-Desc WG (Public)" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1034005595.29389.32.camel@xerom>

On Mon, 2002-10-07 at 11:27, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
> IMO dissecting the WSDL 1.1 spec is not the way to proceed on this 
> topic at least.
> 
> What do people feel is the right design point? We have the freedom
> to do what we all believe is right (assuming consensus of course!),
> so I'd much rather try to see what that is rather than arguing one
> way or the other based just on what's in WSDL 1.1. 

Umm, okay.  I had thought that the argument started from "it was
possible in 1.1, so it should be possible in 1.2."  That is an entirely
different animal than "it should be added to 1.2."

My interpretation of the 1.1 specification was that it was not possible.

Local discussion (web services geeks at TIBCO) tends toward the "sounds
difficult to implement".  This is what got me interested: general
consensus here was that it wasn't possible before, but the feature
request was framed as "continue to support."

I'm not much in favor of an ambiguous import mechanism.  In fact, I
would argue that the language of the spec should also forbid an import
that has the same import/@namespace (=definitions/@targetNamespace) as
the value of the containing definitions/@targetNamespace (that is, make
the importing WSDL participate in the required uniqueness of
namespaces).

I don't see any gain for permitting multiple instances of a key, when
creating additional keys is easy.

I do think that the following ought to be completely clarified:

can import/@namespace have a different value than the
definitions/@targetNamespace of the imported WSDL?

can any imported namespace match the importing WSDL's
definitions/@targetNamespace?

must import/@namespace be unique?

My understanding of current status: no, no, yes.  After re-reading the
1.1 spec, I think that perhaps "unspecified, unspecified, yes" may
reflect its state.

Amy!
-- 
Amelia A. Lewis
Architect, TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc.
alewis@tibco.com
Received on Monday, 7 October 2002 11:46:56 GMT

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