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

Re: Schemas in imported WSDL

From: Glen Daniels <gdaniels@sonicsoftware.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 15:19:52 -0500
To: Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@systinet.com>
Cc: "Amelia A. Lewis" <alewis@tibco.com>, Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, tomj@macromedia.com, abrookes@roguewave.com, WS-Description WG <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Message-id: <02fa01c3aaec$aa1766d0$3a33a8c0@MINIME>

True enough.  The current Axis WSDL processor certainly does import all schemas
inside the <types> of an imported WSDL into the processing context so they are
available if they get imported, and I doubt we would do otherwise for WSDL 2.0.
Although you are certainly correct that there can be no "guarantee" in a strict
sense, there was still some question as to whether this case would be mentioned
at all in the spec.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek.kopecky@systinet.com>
To: "Glen Daniels" <gdaniels@sonicsoftware.com>
Cc: "Amelia A. Lewis" <alewis@tibco.com>; "Martin Gudgin"
<mgudgin@microsoft.com>; <tomj@macromedia.com>; <abrookes@roguewave.com>;
"WS-Description WG" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 1:28 PM
Subject: Re: Schemas in imported WSDL

> Glen, I intentionally omitted the word guarantee.
> Just as we cannot give any guarantee that the import will be available,
> just as we cannot give any guarantee that WSDLs over 10k will be
> processed, we cannot provide guarantees (or any kind of simple language,
> it seems) about those imports. On the other hand, if I was implementing
> a WSDL processor, I think I'd make that case possible almost
> inadvertently.
>                    Jacek Kopecky
>                    Systinet Corporation
>                    http://www.systinet.com/
> On Fri, 2003-11-14 at 08:05, Glen Daniels wrote:
> > > I also agree on the semantics as far as Gudge formulated it.
> > >
> > > But I thought WSDL A can use schema C inlined in WSDL B if WSDL A
> > > wsdl:imports WSDL B and xs:imports schema C (probably omitting the
> > > location attribute).
> >
> > That was pretty much the jist of the conversation we had at the F2F;
whether or
> > not there should be any guarantee of being able to do just that.
> > the answer is "no", though.
> >
> > --G
> >
> >
Received on Friday, 14 November 2003 15:20:12 UTC

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