W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > February 2003

Re: On removing messages

From: Siarhei Biarozkin <sberyozkin@zandar.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 10:08:33 -0000
Message-ID: <004801c2cdc7$b50031b0$1800a8c0@BERYOZKIN>
To: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, "FABLET Youenn" <youenn.fablet@crf.canon.fr>, "Roberto Chinnici" <roberto.chinnici@sun.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Cc: "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>

Hello,
Risking to miss entirely the context of this thread, I still would like to
give my support (0.0...01 cent :-)) to <wsdl:message>.
IMHO, these are major disadvantages of removing the construct :
1. The WSDL 1.2 learning curve is steep, and it'll become even steeper. The
developers will be forced to start to learn basic XML Schema constructs
first. <wsdl:message> provides an easy way to start creating simple WSDL
docs without worrying what <types> section is, especially with multiple
parts being present.
2. It's natural, at least for myself, to see how messages are grouped into
operations. I'm looking at <wsdl:message> and see what parts are there, and
if I want, I can go further and see how those parts are structured. Without
the construct, I'll have to dive into the schema straight away.
3. <wsdl:message> is convenient for holding multiple parts. It seems not
right to define artificial containers at the XML Schema level so that
multiple parts can be passed as part an input/output message. These new
containers are not part of the system vocabulary, and as such, it'll be not
possible in many cases just to take some schema and refer to it while
building the service description. The service description authors will be
forced to either modify an existing schema or to create a new schema (and
introducing new namespaces in many cases) in <types> or elsewhere so that
<message>-like containers could be created.

Cheers
Sergey Beryozkin
Zandar Technogies, Dublin, Ireland
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
To: "FABLET Youenn" <youenn.fablet@crf.canon.fr>; "Roberto Chinnici"
<roberto.chinnici@sun.com>; <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Cc: "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 5:37 AM
Subject: Re: On removing messages


>
> "FABLET Youenn" youenn.fablet@crf.canon.fr writes:
> >
> > IMHO, we are searching for a construct quite similar to the xsd:element
> > but a little bit more constrained (fewer properties, no xml-schema
> > children in it) and with a sligthly different semantic.
> > Would it better to add another construct for the purpose of clarity,
> > readability and accuracy, the tradeoff being a (small ?) increase of the
> > complexity ? I am not sure of the answer...
> > Thoughts ?
>
> ;-) <wsdl:message> ;-)
>
> I am a bit surprised that the proposal I made for how to eliminate
> message is not interesting to more people. Basically what I proposed
> allows one to use a single XSD element or type for the 80% case and
> IF ONE WISHES to document more than one input or output element or type,
> then they can indicate it. That's a nice way to cleanly support the
> attachment stuff, for example (such as additional XML documents or
> GIF images people may want to send along with their SOAP envelope).
>
> It seems like a middle-ground that allows the people happy with just
> modeling the world with schema to do so, but allows others to life
> happily too.
>
> Sanjiva.
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 6 February 2003 05:09:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:22 GMT