W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > February 2004

RE: WSDL Import/Include Locations

From: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 06:53:37 -0800
Message-ID: <DD35CC66F54D8248B6E04232892B633801389C65@RED-MSG-43.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek.kopecky@systinet.com>, <ygoland@bea.com>
Cc: "WS-Description WG" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

I would expect a schema processor to deal with multiple imports of the
same namespace, perhaps by ignoring all but the first that resolves to a
set of schema components.

Given that the spec does not rule out multiple import elements with the
same value for their namespace attribute I would expect a WSDL processor
to do the same.

Gudge 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jacek Kopecky
> Sent: 18 February 2004 14:40
> To: ygoland@bea.com
> Cc: WS-Description WG
> Subject: Re: WSDL Import/Include Locations
> 
> 
> Yaron, since the location is just a hint, do you think you 
> could just have a few import statements with different locations?
> 
> <import namespace="a" location="a.wsdl"/> <import 
> namespace="a" location="http://somewhere.else/a.wsdl"/>
> 
> I would like to keep the similarity between XML Schema's 
> import and WSDL's import.
> 
> Jacek
> 
> On Fri, 2004-01-23 at 00:09, Yaron Goland wrote:
> > Both WSDL import and include only allow for a single location to be 
> > specified. Given the unreliable nature of the Internet 
> would it not be 
> > appropriate to allow for more than one location to be specified?
> > 
> > Given the permissive semantics of include it would be tempting to 
> > specify multiple includes, all pointing to the same file but at 
> > different locations as a way to make the WSDL definition 
> more robust 
> > in the face of network failures. However this would 
> needlessly waste 
> > system resources making unnecessary file requests. If the WSDL 
> > processor knows that a set of URIs are equivalent then it need only 
> > make requests until it finds a URI that works.
> > 
> > In the case of import the specification doesn't actually 
> define what 
> > happens if someone writes two imports for an identical namespace. 
> > Although some limited definition redundancy is supported by 
> the spec 
> > the support would not appear to be robust enough to support 
> importing 
> > the same WSDL definition twice. Therefore putting in two 
> imports as a 
> > way to provide redundant locations would appear illegal.
> > 
> > But this begs the question - Is it illegal to specify two 
> imports for 
> > the same namespace? If so, shouldn't this be explicitly 
> stated in the spec?
> > 
> > What is the required behavior if it is impossible to successfully 
> > import/include an identified document? If this an 
> unrecoverable error 
> > that requires that the WSDL be rejected for processing? If so, then 
> > shouldn't the spec explicitly state this?
> > 
> > 	Thanks,
> > 
> > 		Yaron
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 18 February 2004 09:53:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:15:02 UTC