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

RE: WSDL Import/Include Locations

From: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 16:15:17 -0800
Message-ID: <DD35CC66F54D8248B6E04232892B6338015FDDFE@RED-MSG-43.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <ygoland@bea.com>
Cc: "Arthur Ryman" <ryman@ca.ibm.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

I'm unconvinced that schema got it wrong ( see previous e-mail ).

Gudge 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yaron Y. Goland [mailto:ygoland@bea.com] 
> Sent: 03 March 2004 23:29
> To: Martin Gudgin
> Cc: Arthur Ryman; www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: Re: WSDL Import/Include Locations
> 
> I wasn't aware that schema getting it wrong meant that we 
> also had to get it wrong. Networks are unreliable and having 
> a single location to retrieve critical data is a single point 
> of failure. Single points of failure in unreliable networks 
> seems a bad thing. So let us not do it.
> 
> Martin Gudgin wrote:
> 
> > I'm not sure why you'd draw that conclusion. I note schema 
> import has 
> > exactly the same issues as wsdl:import and I've not heard anybody 
> > suggesting that schema is broken in this regard...
> > 
> > Gudge
> > 
> >  > -----Original Message-----
> >  > From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
> >  > [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Yaron 
> Y. Goland  > 
> > Sent: 01 March 2004 23:02  > To: Martin Gudgin  > Cc: Arthur Ryman; 
> > www-ws-desc@w3.org  > Subject: Re: WSDL Import/Include 
> Locations  >  >  
> > > Which means that if one did decide to use two imports to 
> pull  > in 
> > the same data for the purpose of robustness then if both  > imports 
> > succeed, besides wasting time and resources, the WSDL  > would be 
> > illegal since the same data would be pulled in twice.
> >  >
> >  > Therefore it would seem appropriate to make it possible 
> to  > list 
> > multiple URIs on a single import with the explicit  > 
> semantics that 
> > one should try them in a random order (for  > load 
> balancing purposes) 
> > until one works.
> >  >
> >  >       Yaron
> >  >
> >  > Martin Gudgin wrote:
> >  >
> >  > > I didn't say the spec prohibited two or more imports with the 
> > same  > > namespace attribute. I said it prohibited two or more 
> > imports that  > > resulted in components in a given symbol 
> space with duplicate names.
> >  > >
> >  > > I believe the spec already states that an import is a 
> necessary  
> > > > condition in order to reference components in a given  
> > namespace 
> > that  > > is not the target namespace  > >  > > Gudge  > >
> >  > >    
> >  > --------------------------------------------------------------
> >  > ------------------
> >  > >     *From:* www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
> >  > [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] *On
> >  > >     Behalf Of *Arthur Ryman
> >  > >     *Sent:* 20 February 2004 20:24
> >  > >     *To:* www-ws-desc@w3.org
> >  > >     *Subject:* Re: WSDL Import/Include Locations
> >  > >
> >  > >
> >  > >     Gudge,
> >  > >
> >  > >     I looked at the spec and the schema and I couldn't see
> >  > where we prohit two
> >  > >     or more <import>'s that have the same namespace attribute.
> >  > >
> >  > >     Also, in the case of diamond inheritance, you will end
> >  > up indirectly
> >  > >     importing the same WSDL into the component model twice.
> >  > We allowed this by
> >  > >     saying if a component is defined twice or more then the
> >  > definitions must be
> >  > >     equivalent.
> >  > >
> >  > >     I have been looking at imports and includes in the spec
> >  > and I think we need
> >  > >     to clarilfy the situation. If a WSDL directly
> >  > references a component from
> >  > >     another namespace, then that namespace MUST be declared
> >  > in a top level
> >  > >     import, whereas any components that are directly or
> >  > indirectly included or
> >  > >     imported do become part of the component model. The
> >  > component model
> >  > >     "forgets" where they come from, yet we do care about
> >  > where they come from by
> >  > >     requiring top-level imports. We seem to have two levels
> >  > at which we discuss
> >  > >     correctness, namely at the document level (where we
> >  > have imports and
> >  > >     includes) and at the component model level (after
> >  > imports and includes are
> >  > >     resolved). This is analogous to PSVI. We seem to have
> >  > the notion of a Pre
> >  > >     and Post Import/Include Processing Component Model.
> >  > >
> >  > >     Arthur Ryman,
> >  > >     Rational Desktop Tools Development
> >  > >
> >  > >     phone: 905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
> >  > >     assistant: 905-413-2411, TL 969-2411
> >  > >     fax: 905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
> >  > >     intranet: http://w3.torolab.ibm.com/DEAB/
> >  > >
> >  > >     www-ws-desc-request@w3.org wrote on 02/18/2004 06:05:01 PM:
> >  > >
> >  > >      >
> >  > >      >
> >  > >      > Martin Gudgin wrote:
> >  > >      > Actually I think our current spec already prohibits
> >  > multiple imports
> >  > >      > ( or includes ) of components with duplicate names.
> >  > So while you
> >  > >      > could do two imports of the same namespace, it would
> >  > only work if
> >  > >      > all the components in the second had names different
> >  > from those in the
> >  > >     first.
> >  > >      > 
> >  > >      > Gudge
> >  >
> >  >
> > 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 3 March 2004 19:16:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:30 GMT