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

RE: Schemas in imported WSDL

From: Jeffrey Schlimmer <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 11:25:23 -0800
Message-ID: <DDE1793D7266AD488BB4F5E8D38EACB803E90EB9@WIN-MSG-10.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
To: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, "Tom Jordahl" <tomj@macromedia.com>, "Amelia A. Lewis" <alewis@tibco.com>, "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

I added this work item to the Editors TODO.
http://tinyurl.com/vpto

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]
On
> Behalf Of Sanjiva Weerawarana
> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 8:55 AM
> To: Tom Jordahl; 'Amelia A. Lewis'; Martin Gudgin
> Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Schemas in imported WSDL
> 
> 
> +1 ..  Roberto, could you take this please? This is in your part
> of the spec ;-).
> 
> Sanjiva.
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tom Jordahl" <tomj@macromedia.com>
> To: "'Amelia A. Lewis'" <alewis@tibco.com>; "'Martin Gudgin'"
> <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
> Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 10:00 PM
> 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.
> >
> > Amy!
> > --
> > Amelia A. Lewis
> > Architect, TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc.
> > alewis@tibco.com
Received on Wednesday, 19 November 2003 14:24:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:27 GMT