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

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

From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 20:50:47 +0600
Message-ID: <015f01c25feb$f3d17920$794687ca@lankabook2>
To: "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek@systinet.com>
Cc: <ryman@ca.ibm.com>, "WS Description WG" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

Whoaw, we have by no means agreed to drop the multiple type
systems function of WSDL. That is still absolutely there!

Sanjiva.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek@systinet.com>
To: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Cc: <ryman@ca.ibm.com>; "WS Description WG" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 7:47 PM
Subject: Re: Rationale for Dropping the <soap:body use=...> Attribute


> Sanjiva,
>  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
>                    http://www.systinet.com/
>
>
>
> 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 10:52:26 GMT

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