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

Re: Rationale for Dropping the <soap:body use=...> Attribute

From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
Date: 19 Sep 2002 15:47:40 +0200
To: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Cc: ryman@ca.ibm.com, WS Description WG <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1032443260.13236.9.camel@krava>

 use="encoded" is not necessary if we allow other type systems, as WSDL
1.1 does. Then to use SOAP Encoding one would have to devise a SOAP Data
Model Schema language, which is not a big problem, considering the
simplicity of SOAP Data Model. But both disallowing other schema
languages and removing use="encoded" leaves us with trees only (plus
whatever XML Schema does, but it really is about trees).
 SOAP Encoding is as optional in SOAP 1.2 as it had been in SOAP 1.1,
it's just more explicit in 1.2. BTW, it's the same for the HTTP binding.
 So we cannot forget SOAP Encoding without a clear statement that after
WSDL 1.2 there will be WSDL 2.0 that will do the right thing and support
all appropriate W3C technologies and that WSDL 1.2 will just be the
interoperable cleaned-up subset of WSDL 1.1. But then, isn't this what
WS-I is trying to do? 8-)
 Best regards

                   Jacek Kopecky

                   Senior Architect, Systinet Corporation

On Thu, 2002-09-19 at 15:30, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
> "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek@systinet.com> writes:
> > 
> >  2. WS-I doesn't seem to support SOAP Encoding in their activities, and
> > if I understand you correctly, they are in fact creating their own graph
> > encoding. It is understandable for them, but I don't think it is
> > possible for WSDL 1.2 not to support SOAP Encoding properly, since SOAP
> > Encoding is part of SOAP 1.2 - the product of a peer W3C Working Group -
> > and the WS-Desc WG has sent no comments against SOAP Encoding in the
> > Last Call phase.
> I would personally like to support SOAPEnc, but I'm greatly
> pained by the cost of use=encoded .. and the fact that it leads
> to doubling the variations of WSDLs possible for a given
> service.
> I think you would agree that the non-graph part of soap-enc can
> be reasonably covered by literal, right? In fact, most of the
> impls already basically assuem that .. for example by ignoring
> attributes in schemas. (Apparently Axis and the JAX-RPC ref impl
> both do that.)
> The question then is where the graph use-case falls in the 80-20
> split. 
> Also, SOAP 1.2 did make that an optional part of the spec.
> Sanjiva.
Received on Thursday, 19 September 2002 09:47:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:06:25 UTC