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

RE: Schemas in imported WSDL

From: <paul.downey@bt.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 16:07:29 -0000
Message-ID: <2B7789AAED12954AAD214AEAC13ACCEF0FFF1DBF@i2km02-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net>
To: <tomj@macromedia.com>, <alewis@tibco.com>, <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
*absolutely* +1

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: Tom Jordahl [mailto:tomj@macromedia.com] 
	Sent: Fri 14/11/2003 16:00 
	To: 'Amelia A. Lewis'; 'Martin Gudgin' 
	Cc: 'www-ws-desc@w3.org' 
	Subject: RE: Schemas in imported WSDL

	Thanks Gudge for (once again) clearing this up for me/us.
	What you and Amy say makes sense, it would be *very* cool if explanations like this could make their way in to the specification so that others will not get as confused as I was.
	Can one of the editors do this?
	Tom Jordahl
	Macromedia Server Development
	-----Original Message-----
	From: Amelia A. Lewis [mailto:alewis@tibco.com]
	Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 11:46 AM
	To: Martin Gudgin
	Cc: tomj@macromedia.com; abrookes@roguewave.com; www-ws-desc@w3.org
	Subject: Re: Schemas in imported WSDL
	On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 08:18:43 -0800
	Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com> wrote:
	> Given WSDL A importing WSDL B which either imports or declares inline
	> Schema C then only *WSDL* constructs defined in WSDL B are visible to
	> WSDL A. The schema constructs defined in Schema C are only visible to
	> WSDL B, they are not visible to WSDL A.
	> Note that this DOES NOT stop you using the WSDL constructs from WSDL B
	> in WSDL A. So if you have an interface in WSDL B that uses types in
	> Schema C, you can define a binding for that interface in WSDL A.
	> It DOES stop you defining a new interface in WSDL A that references
	> schema constructs in Schema C.
	Completely agree that this *is* the current semantic, and that it
	*should be* the semantic.
	If you want the schema to be made available to multiple WSDLs, create it
	standalone and import.  One of the semantics of inlining/embedding a
	schema (in my opinion) is to say "mine, mine, my schema, mine, mine,
	mine!"  Hands off; don't touch; For Internal Use Only; No
	User-Serviceable Parts Inside.  It is useful to be able to say this.  If
	it were the only thing that could be said, then it would be a problem,
	but it isn't.  If it's intended for reuse, put it where it can be
	reused.  If it's in a private location, then it's perfectly sensible
	that it's only available for private use.
	Amelia A. Lewis
	Architect, TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc.

Received on Friday, 14 November 2003 11:07:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:54:45 UTC