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

WSDL Import/Include Locations

From: Yaron Goland <ygoland@bea.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 15:09:15 -0800
To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Message-ID: <02bc01c3e13c$c1d5fda0$65e5e40c@bea.com>

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 Thursday, 22 January 2004 18:12:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:28 GMT