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

RE: WSDL Import/Include Locations

From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@systinet.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 15:58:38 +0100
To: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
Cc: ygoland@bea.com, WS-Description WG <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1077116318.26482.64.camel@localhost>

I, on the other hand, would expect such a processor to try to find
unknown QNames with that namespace in the first document, failing that
go to the next etc.

The rationale is that one can define chunks of one namespace in
different files (*I* don't know why, but some people do that) and all
these files would be imported the way I indicated below. This would then
also result in support for the failover multi-import scenario. 8-)

                   Jacek Kopecky

                   Systinet Corporation
                   http://www.systinet.com/




On Wed, 2004-02-18 at 15:53, Martin Gudgin wrote:
> 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 09:58:43 UTC

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