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 07:03:12 -0800
Message-ID: <DD35CC66F54D8248B6E04232892B633801389C7D@RED-MSG-43.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek.kopecky@systinet.com>
Cc: <ygoland@bea.com>, "WS-Description WG" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

I can see processors working in either mode. In fact, I'd quite like my
processor to let me choose the behaviour at run-time. 

One problem with *actually* importing multiple documents is the clash of
definitions when two or more schema documents define a given named
construct.

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 14:59
> To: Martin Gudgin
> Cc: ygoland@bea.com; WS-Description WG
> Subject: RE: WSDL Import/Include Locations
> 
> 
> 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 10:02:48 UTC

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